Quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
I HAVE read the whole thread, actually, Yorick!  And I was using the word 'listen' perfectly correctly. But it is, as you say, perfectly possible to listen without agreeing. I often 'listen' to what people say without agreeing.
To 'listen' means to hear the words and UNDERSTAND, whether one agrees or not.
BUT angry or hurt people do not 'listen' and 'understand' because they cannot, at that time. Oh, their HEADS may understand, but not their hearts, not their feelings. I have often understood with my head that something is correct/incorrect, but my feelings, my heart went absolutely contrary to what my head said! I'm sure you have been in that state too!
|
I'm perfectly aware of what listen means. I'm perfectly aware it means understanding, reception comprehension. That is my point.
Who here was hurt, angry, wounded? Certainly not I. Do you mean to tell me that because I disagree passionately the only explaination you can resolve is that I was hurt or wounded and so did not understand or hear?
I'm sorry Fjlotsdale but it
is intolerance. It is refusal to acknowledge that you could be wrong and that all that remains is for you to get me to understand your view.
Whether you intend it or not it is highly insulting and hampers discussion. Respect is paramount to discourse.
I repeat, since you seem to have ignored my statement, that Dio made an assumption without key information. A factor you seem to blithely disregard in your statement about me not listening.
No I am not hurt, wounded or angry; merely being matter of fact. Discussion is impossible if you refuse to allow another the right to a different opinion. The right to look at a picture and draw different analysis.
Thankyou m'girl
------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!