An apology...

I would just like to apologize if anything I said on the recent 'Yes We Can' thread; caused anyone hurt or discomfort. It was not my intention.

I am bigger than that and should really be more even keeled in my responses as are Ferd, Cab and wodcutr.

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
...caused anyone hurt or discomfort...

Errr... Peter, just continue the way you ever did. I haven't read that specific thread but I know you've always been there for us and the forum, without being controversial, without the intention of hurting or discomforting. Just stay who you are and say what you want to say. Be yourself! I wouldn't want you to stay quiet because somebody might be offended by what you say.

Quote
Michiel 318iS

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
...caused anyone hurt or discomfort...

Errr... Peter, just continue the way you ever did. I haven't read that specific thread but I know you've always been there for us and the forum, without being controversial, without the intention of hurting or discomforting. Just stay who you are and say what you want to say. Be yourself! I wouldn't want you to stay quiet because somebody might be offended by what you say.

Thanks Michiel,

But I really have to work a little harder at my communication skills

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
I would just like to apologize if anything I said on the recent 'Yes We Can' thread; caused anyone hurt or discomfort. It was not my intention.

I am bigger than that and should really be more even keeled in my responses as are Ferd, Cab and wodcutr.

Even keeled...That is not part of my vocabulary bro! I think I am always offending someone with my posts. Another good saying I heard once was - "He who gets offended when no offense was intended is a fool; And he who gets offended when offense is intended is a bigger fool" So much for all us fools Anyhow, as far as the political satire we have all experienced I think it was informative if for nothing else. It opens the door a little more into who we are communicating with and helps us understand where we each are coming from. It is good to express those feelings from time to time. It shows you have a backbone and are willing to stand up for what you believe in. If we all thought alike the world would be pretty boring. So go ahead and post some more Peter...no need to apologize.

I thought it was pretty funny that Bob said he had tried to convince Cab a while back to avoid discussions about politics, religion, and women. I have always figured that women were harder to communicate with than about!o I guess I must do OK in that department as I am celebrating 22 yrs of marriage tonight with the Mrs. We are going out with some friends to an all you can eat seafood buffet at a local resort here. That's a good way for me to celebrate...good friends, lots of good food, and maybe I will even get lucky afterwards! And just for laughs both Penny and I are of the opinion that a good meal is better than sex because it lasts longer!

Quote
wodcutr

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
I would just like to apologize if anything I said on the recent 'Yes We Can' thread; caused anyone hurt or discomfort. It was not my intention.

I am bigger than that and should really be more even keeled in my responses as are Ferd, Cab and wodcutr.

Even keeled...That is not part of my vocabulary bro! I think I am always offending someone with my posts. Another good saying I heard once was - "He who gets offended when no offense was intended is a fool; And he who gets offended when offense is intended is a bigger fool" So much for all us fools Anyhow, as far as the political satire we have all experienced I think it was informative if for nothing else. It opens the door a little more into who we are communicating with and helps us understand where we each are coming from. It is good to express those feelings from time to time. It shows you have a backbone and are willing to stand up for what you believe in. If we all thought alike the world would be pretty boring. So go ahead and post some more Peter...no need to apologize.

I thought it was pretty funny that Bob said he had tried to convince Cab a while back to avoid discussions about politics, religion, and women. I have always figured that women were harder to communicate with than about!o I guess I must do OK in that department as I am celebrating 22 yrs of marriage tonight with the Mrs. We are going out with some friends to an all you can eat seafood buffet at a local resort here. That's a good way for me to celebrate...good friends, lots of good food, and maybe I will even get lucky afterwards! And just for laughs both Penny and I are of the opinion that a good meal is better than sex because it lasts longer!

By 'even keeled' I meant being able to keep your eye on the target and not being drawn emotionally off track. This post is a perfectly good example.

I will likely post on future threads but the current one is done. It probably won't be long before we have something of substance to discuss/debate. NAFTA is coming up for renewal/renegotiation and that is likely to provide lots of differing opinions from folks in the affected partner nations, like Canada and Mexico

I'm with Bob P.; those hp vs torque and turbo diesel lag discussions where a lot more fun and mentally challenging. Too bad Vlad isn't still around; he always had the neatest graphs and diagrams.

Congrats on making it for 22 years
We're coming up on 36 years...so at least I haven't overly/overtly offended 'she who must be obeyed'

Peter, don't worry about it. Like everyone else said, be who you are, I'm not that easily offended, and it doesn't seem like anyone else here is either. Have a great day Peter and Congrats Wodcutr

Quote
Andy 90 325i
Peter, don't worry about it. Like everyone else said, be who you are, I'm not that easily offended, and it doesn't seem like anyone else here is either. Have a great day Peter and Congrats Wodcutr

Ditto

22 and 36 years?!?! RESPECT! Don't know who's achievement that is, yours or your wife's...
We're at 2.5 years of being in a relationship (I'm not intending to marry) and that already seems a long time to me ;-) (and I'm not complaining).

Peter, if everyone agreed on everything, life could get pretty dull. Nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion in most cases.

alan

Quote
Michiel 318iS
22 and 36 years?!?! RESPECT! Don't know who's achievement that is, yours or your wife's...
We're at 2.5 years of being in a relationship (I'm not intending to marry) and that already seems a long time to me ;-) (and I'm not complaining).

Don't know about wodcutr but in my case it's mutual although her 'tolerance' level is obviously way higher than mine

Don't worry about marriage or formalizing anything...just love one another

Quote
alanrw
Peter, if everyone agreed on everything, life could get pretty dull. Nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion in most cases.

alan

I'm just apologizing for how I handled my dissenting opinion, not my point(s) of view.

Except for politics, religion and few topics like guns; I can calmly discuss and debate just about any topic. On some other forums, I have been dubbed 'a great debater' and 'troll killer' because I am enthusiastically involved rather than emotionally.

I guess the difference is that with subjects that can be argued with facts, figures and documented supporting evidence don't tend to evoke emotional responses like those that are based on beliefs and/or propaganda.

If I can learn to discuss and debate issues; which are by their very nature open to all sorts of interpretation; like Ferd or Bob P or wodcutr or yourself...I might actually make an ok debater

Quote
Michiel 318iS
22 and 36 years?!?! RESPECT! Don't know who's achievement that is, yours or your wife's...
We're at 2.5 years of being in a relationship (I'm not intending to marry) and that already seems a long time to me ;-) (and I'm not complaining).

A marriage is generally maintained through a mutual ritual of give and take and turning the other cheek. I have my faults and so does my wife. We have learned to tolerate each others weaknesses by focusing on each others strengths, and believe me no one else can point out your weaknesses than your spouse. I think I stated on the old forum once that when two people first get together they are not "in love" as most people think...they are in lust! Once that lust wears off that is when the relationship starts to become real love. I define love as the partnership one develops over time by experiencing what life has to throw at each other and the bond that forms from working together to overcome those challenges. One cannot fall in love...it is only experienced.

That being said, I also believe that a partnership between a man and woman will have a much tougher time getting to that point of experiencing the kind of love I am talking about without a third element. That element is the commitment to God each one takes when formalizing the relationship into a marriage. To all the atheists and agnostics that may read this I apologise for discussing a topic that one may not believe in, but IMO I am not discussing religion so to speak, or any specific denominational doctrine, only a point that makes a relationship better because there is another entity to answer to. Now I am not known for my political correctness, nor do I care to be thought of as such, but I mention this, along with the disclaimer, because this concept is more on the logical side than a doctrinal discussion of religious belief.

A relationship is really a partnership between two individuals. If one believes that they are doing more than the other in that partnership, then there arises a dispute between the partners to rectify the situation. This is where one's judgement can become clouded because each partner can become entombed in their own experience not being able or willing to see the other side so to speak. When a third party enters the picture each partner must then answer to someone or something else for their behavior. This is the glue that makes the whole thing work like it should. It enables each partner to endure the others misgivings for the sake of something bigger and better than one's own selfish viewpoint. That commitment to a third party, whether it be God or the State, is what keeps a relationship together when the going gets tough.

Now I can only speak from the 22 years of experience that I have, but let me tell you that there were times when I thought it would definitely be a lot easier on me emotionally and maybe even financially to have a house keeper, cook, and hooker to meet my needs. The only thing that kept me going during those times was the commitment I made to God when I took the Mrs to wife. I am a man of my word and I made a commitment to cherish in good times and bad. If it had not been for that commitment I would definitely be divorced like my own parents were and most of my other siblings are. I believe that this and my own integrity is why I have been able to stay married for this long. I highly recommend that kind of commitment if you desire a lasting relationship. It doesn't always work, but it gives a partnership a fighting chance. So much for my opinion on the matter!

.....and the fact that statistically, married men live longer than their single counterparts.

Peter, just don't become a masterdebater, you will go blind......."can I just do it until I need glasses?" (sorry, I don't get to roll that old joke out too often)

alan

Quote
alanrw
.....and the fact that statistically, married men live longer than their single counterparts.

Peter, just don't become a masterdebater, you will go blind......."can I just do it until I need glasses?" (sorry, I don't get to roll that old joke out too often)

alan

There is a fine stubble growing on my palms...is it too late to stop?

peter, and others,

I find that it helps to distinguish between an argument and a discussion. What is the difference between an arguement and a discussion? Peter, you know that I use the Socratic method for teaching, therefore I shan't give what my definitions are for discussion and arguement, until we have had some discussion on the subject, except to say that in my 38 +years of mariage to wonderfully tolerant saint of a woman, the difference between a discussion and an arguement are moot!

Salut, Bob P.

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
peter, and others,

I find that it helps to distinguish between an argument and a discussion. What is the difference between an arguement and a discussion? Peter, you know that I use the Socratic method for teaching, therefore I shan't give what my definitions are for discussion and arguement, until we have had some discussion on the subject, except to say that in my 38 +years of mariage to wonderfully tolerant saint of a woman, the difference between a discussion and an arguement are moot!

Salut, Bob P.

I would say the only difference between an argument and a discussion is the level of negative emotion expressed by either party. When tempers rise and voices reach fevered pitch I believe that the discussion has ended and an argument ensues!

Quote
wodcutr
...

I would say the only difference between an argument and a discussion is the level of negative emotion expressed by either party. When tempers rise and voices reach fevered pitch I believe that the discussion has ended and an argument ensues!

That's a good one.

How would you differentiate tolerance from respect?

Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

I'll buy that

Quote

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

Hmmmmm....gotta think about this one:thinking:

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

I do not believe I have ever had or heard of a positive argument, unless we are talking about two attorneys "arguing" a matter before a judge. In that case I would hardly call that an argument in the true sense of the word...more of a legal discussion. I have had many positive discussions though, usually in an atmosphere of calm and understanding. The Mrs. and I use to have a fair amount of arguments when we were younger...now we have discussions due to the fact that we understand each other much better. Besides, after you have essentially the same argument 100 times it's not worth spending the energy any more to not solve the problem.

I agree with your definition of tolerance and respect. The only thing I might add is that for me respect is something that has to be earned!

Quote
wodcutr

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

I do not believe I have ever had or heard of a positive argument, unless we are talking about two attorneys "arguing" a matter before a judge. In that case I would hardly call that an argument in the true sense of the word...more of a legal discussion. I have had many positive discussions though, usually in an atmosphere of calm and understanding. The Mrs. and I use to have a fair amount of arguments when we were younger...now we have discussions due to the fact that we understand each other much better. Besides, after you have essentially the same argument 100 times it's not worth spending the energy any more to not solve the problem.

I agree with your definition of tolerance and respect. The only thing I might add is that for me respect is something that has to be earned!

A priori, a person has my respect until he/she loses it.

The major difference between a discussion and an arguement is that a discussion deals with FACTS and trying to understand the facts or sort them out, while an arguement deals with OPINIONS, which is essentially what lawyers do when presenting their 'arguements' before a judge or jury.
This is why talk about religion, politics and sex always end up in arguements, usually leading nowhere, and not convincing anyone of anything.

I prefer to discuss 'torque vs HP' and 'turbo-lag in diesels' because we are dealing with facts and when the facts are understood all participants in the discussion profit, except, of course, those who do not accept or understand the facts and start an arguement, by finally claiming that 'everyone is entitled to his/her opinion'!

I will say, however, that when you claim that now you are having 'discussions' with your better half, you are actually having 'positive' (civilized) arguements, unless, of course you are discussing the proper term to use to describe your latest plant hybrids (facts).
Whether or not the discussion/arguement is positive or negative or emotional or not, is not what distinguishes an arguement from a discussion.

Salut, Bob p.

Quote
Bob P 325is 88

Quote
wodcutr

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

I do not believe I have ever had or heard of a positive argument, unless we are talking about two attorneys "arguing" a matter before a judge. In that case I would hardly call that an argument in the true sense of the word...more of a legal discussion. I have had many positive discussions though, usually in an atmosphere of calm and understanding. The Mrs. and I use to have a fair amount of arguments when we were younger...now we have discussions due to the fact that we understand each other much better. Besides, after you have essentially the same argument 100 times it's not worth spending the energy any more to not solve the problem.

I agree with your definition of tolerance and respect. The only thing I might add is that for me respect is something that has to be earned!

A priori, a person has my respect until he/she loses it.

The major difference between a discussion and an arguement is that a discussion deals with FACTS and trying to understand the facts or sort them out, while an arguement deals with OPINIONS, which is essentially what lawyers do when presenting their 'arguements' before a judge or jury.
This is why talk about religion, politics and sex always end up in arguements, usually leading nowhere, and not convincing anyone of anything.

I prefer to discuss 'torque vs HP' and 'turbo-lag in diesels' because we are dealing with facts and when the facts are understood all participants in the discussion profit, except, of course, those who do not accept or understand the facts and start an arguement, by finally claiming that 'everyone is entitled to his/her opinion'!

I will say, however, that when you claim that now you are having 'discussions' with your better half, you are actually having 'positive' (civilized) arguements, unless, of course you are discussing the proper term to use to describe your latest plant hybrids (facts).
Whether or not the discussion/arguement is positive or negative or emotional or not, is not what distinguishes an arguement from a discussion.

Salut, Bob p.

Ok...I'll buy that too

Quote
Bob P 325is 88

Quote
wodcutr

Quote
Bob P 325is 88
Tolerance is very close or more like allowing others to do, think or say what one might want to prevent others from doing, saying or thinking. Respect entails more than simple tolerance, but an actual valuing of the thought, saying or action and the person. One can tolerate without respect, usually because one has been compelled or forced to do so, i.e. legislation.

Meanwhile, at the ranch, wodctr, you have stated that the level of negative emotion is what distinguishes a discussion from an arguement. The difference, I am afraid, lies more in the characteristics of a discussion or arguement, not in how negative or positive the emotions are raised in either. I have witnessed many a positive arguement and discussion, although usually a discussion is rarely positive or negative.

Salut, Bob p.

I do not believe I have ever had or heard of a positive argument, unless we are talking about two attorneys "arguing" a matter before a judge. In that case I would hardly call that an argument in the true sense of the word...more of a legal discussion. I have had many positive discussions though, usually in an atmosphere of calm and understanding. The Mrs. and I use to have a fair amount of arguments when we were younger...now we have discussions due to the fact that we understand each other much better. Besides, after you have essentially the same argument 100 times it's not worth spending the energy any more to not solve the problem.

I agree with your definition of tolerance and respect. The only thing I might add is that for me respect is something that has to be earned!

A priori, a person has my respect until he/she loses it.

The major difference between a discussion and an arguement is that a discussion deals with FACTS and trying to understand the facts or sort them out, while an arguement deals with OPINIONS, which is essentially what lawyers do when presenting their 'arguements' before a judge or jury.
This is why talk about religion, politics and sex always end up in arguements, usually leading nowhere, and not convincing anyone of anything.

I prefer to discuss 'torque vs HP' and 'turbo-lag in diesels' because we are dealing with facts and when the facts are understood all participants in the discussion profit, except, of course, those who do not accept or understand the facts and start an arguement, by finally claiming that 'everyone is entitled to his/her opinion'!

I will say, however, that when you claim that now you are having 'discussions' with your better half, you are actually having 'positive' (civilized) arguements, unless, of course you are discussing the proper term to use to describe your latest plant hybrids (facts).
Whether or not the discussion/arguement is positive or negative or emotional or not, is not what distinguishes an arguement from a discussion.

Salut, Bob p.

Well, if you put it like that then I guess by definition you are correct! Yes I took your bait and you reeled me in This reminds me of another incident made famous by the current Secretary of State's husband when He sheepishly said "define sexual relations"!!!