From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V7 #175 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Wednesday, August 28 2002 Volume 07 : Number 175 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: sensitivity reply [Bluemeitz@cs.com] Re: Alloy: sensitivity reply [William Steffey ] Alloy: word [Robin Thurlow ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:50:47 EDT From: Bluemeitz@cs.com Subject: Alloy: sensitivity reply Bill, Not only are you the only one to observe and be a victim of insensitivity but I've seen it as well. I am not sure if one cause pinpoint the exact cause of the "nastyness" and fear that you have observed. If you were to examine the 60's in general, you could say that the decade started off nicely carrying over the simplistic, idealistic, and innocence from the 50's. But ended off so radically different. MLK, RFK, AND JFK got shot and killed. America entered Vietnam seeing democracy being threatened. Music became experimental, radical, and outspoken. Drugs became an escape and highly acceptable. Now judging from this, one might have an idea what changed the 60's. Also, there wasnt one factor but several different started influencing other factors including people's thinking, their percetion, and ideals. Zooming forward to today, why all the suspicion? Could it be 9/11. Could it be the aftermath of the Gulf War whereby Iraq never really came clean from following UN and allied agreements. Could it be former president Clinton that involved himself in Whitewater, sex accusations, and his sexual escapades that attempted to deny it leading many to believe that this behavior might be acceptable. Unsure. I recall taking a logic class a long time and by assuming suspicion without rational thinking is illogical right there. It's commonly done everyday by everyone but if one could peel away the layers one might see the reasons behind it. (sometimes publicity plays a part in this and some don't like the fact where the person is focused more than the problem). If everyone could come clean and offer some kind of explanation for his/her action then I would suspect there would be a better understanding between people. As an reader of the New York Times, I have come across several articles that explained President Bush's reasons for his action. (not starting any kind of political dispute here...) but have reason to believe that Bush is more "honest" and "open" with his doings than Clinton was. So far, I rank Bush having better morals and establishing what his reasons are behind his thinking and possible action. (tho I dont like the possible action against Iraq just for the sake of it - I've heard other reasons as well). Recently, i've switched insurance companies, for the sake of getting a better deal, but also for better personal service. Not to say, that my service was lousy but I felt it was personal for business interests not for personal for the sake of better realations, being in a moral sense. So not all people out there, Americans or not, are nasty. The bottom line is seeing what makes people tick and their reasons for doing so. Food for thought.... walt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:31:41 -0500 From: William Steffey Subject: Re: Alloy: sensitivity reply Absolutely, Walt. Figuring out what makes people tick is integral to dealing well with them, (unless one already has an intuitive gift for it, which I probably don't.) Your ideas about the culture are right on too- I'm sure that people feel very vulnerable for the historial reasons you stated- 911 as of late, and it is this that causes their personal and particular picadillos to come to the surface. I've been in therapy for about 3 years and the first thing I learned was trying to figure out where people are coming from, how their background shapes their personality, in short- what their wants, needs, and fears are. This talent for deconstruction has been invaluable for me in diffusing bad situatoins, and allowing me to find my own edges in this wacky, wacky world. I'm glad you switched insurance companies, and dare say the world would be much better off if everybody followed their sensibilities similarly. - -W Bluemeitz@cs.com wrote: >Bill, > >Not only are you the only one to observe and be a victim of insensitivity but >I've seen it as well. I am not sure if one cause pinpoint the exact cause of >the "nastyness" and fear that you have observed. > >If you were to examine the 60's in general, you could say that the decade >started off nicely carrying over the simplistic, idealistic, and innocence >from the 50's. But ended off so radically different. MLK, RFK, AND JFK got >shot and killed. America entered Vietnam seeing democracy being threatened. >Music became experimental, radical, and outspoken. Drugs became an escape and >highly acceptable. Now judging from this, one might have an idea what changed >the 60's. Also, there wasnt one factor but several different started >influencing other factors including people's thinking, their percetion, and >ideals. > >Zooming forward to today, why all the suspicion? Could it be 9/11. Could it >be the aftermath of the Gulf War whereby Iraq never really came clean from >following UN and allied agreements. Could it be former president Clinton that >involved himself in Whitewater, sex accusations, and his sexual escapades >that attempted to deny it leading many to believe that this behavior might be >acceptable. Unsure. > >I recall taking a logic class a long time and by assuming suspicion without >rational thinking is illogical right there. It's commonly done everyday by >everyone but if one could peel away the layers one might see the reasons >behind it. (sometimes publicity plays a part in this and some don't like the >fact where the person is focused more than the problem). If everyone could >come clean and offer some kind of explanation for his/her action then I would >suspect there would be a better understanding between people. As an reader of >the New York Times, I have come across several articles that explained >President Bush's reasons for his action. (not starting any kind of political >dispute here...) but have reason to believe that Bush is more "honest" and >"open" with his doings than Clinton was. So far, I rank Bush having better >morals and establishing what his reasons are behind his thinking and possible >action. (tho I dont like the possible action against Iraq just for the sake >of it - I've heard other reasons as well). > >Recently, i've switched insurance companies, for the sake of getting a better >deal, but also for better personal service. Not to say, that my service was >lousy but I felt it was personal for business interests not for personal for >the sake of better realations, being in a moral sense. So not all people out >there, Americans or not, are nasty. The bottom line is seeing what makes >people tick and their reasons for doing so. Food for thought.... > >walt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:54:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Alloy: word It would be very generous of everyone here to step back from arguing and please regain some personal calm. Believe me when I say I am speaking first hand about this. My husband and I are currently splitting up after a ten-year marriage. Though we are both intelligent and civilised people (and I might have hoped it would go better than this between us as friends, even in parting ways in marriage), there are these arguments we seem to find ourselves in about things which we each take intensely personally, but the other one just doesn't see the point of view. It comes out of stress, having to face an uncertain future, and not knowing whether it's sensible any longer to trust someone who has been your friend for such a long time, and who you thought you knew well. It's a very hard time, but maybe the best thing to do is just understand that emotions are running too high right now for either party to go out on a limb for the other in terms of understanding. Best thing to do is stay calm & step back for a little while. People are getting hurt by this arguing which is only going around in circles & not making things better. Long term, I think we all agree on the basics of freedom and fair treatment in this world. For now please let this be what you keep in mind, and step back from the rest of the things so that you might see things more clearly. More later from me, and I'm sorry I haven't been around much due to things beyond my control right now. I promise to get caught up on my correspondence in the near future. xx ~R Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V7 #175 ***************************