Should Al Franken Resign?

[Cow Poke]

Feeled?

Perhaps "filled?"

Maybe "fielded"

And perhaps "citations" would be better than "sites?"

And I think "you're" is misused....





Wait... wait... the whole THING is a mess. You're making fun....

I'm poking my brudder, Rogue! He will comfort us with a loving, "there, their, they're".

[rogue06]

I'm poking my brudder, Rogue! He will comfort us with a loving, "there, their, they're".

amp-quot-there-their-they-amp-039-re-amp-quot_o_2033313.jpg

[Teallaura]

Like the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality. We are not preparing our kids for the fact that life is tough, there are, indeed, winners and losers, and you really need to apply yourself.

I wanna trophy!

[Cow Poke]

I wanna trophy!

Send me $45 and a SASE, and I'll make it happen.

[Teallaura]

That always comes to mind, for example, when I see somebody in a wheelchair or one of those 'chariots' at Walmart, and they're looking at something on an upper shelf. I always step in to offer assistance, but try to be sure I do it in a way that doesn't...

So far, I've never gotten anything back but appreciation.

The only time it annoys me is if someone seems offended if the answer is no. I usually need the help but occasionally, I really don't.

By the way, it's rare - most folks that offer are perfectly polite.

And only idiots get offended by 'May I help you with that?'. For that matter, only morons are offended where no offense is intended. If you're looking to be offended, the world is not going to be much fun for you.

[Cow Poke]

The only time it annoys me is if someone seems offended if the answer is no. I usually need the help but occasionally, I really don't.

By the way, it's rare - most folks that offer are perfectly polite.

And only idiots get offended by 'May I help you with that?'. For that matter, only morons are offended where no offense is intended. If you're looking to be offended, the world is not going to be much fun for you.

Yeah!!!!

[Teallaura]

If you do it behind my back, how would I know about it?

Yeah, you need to be watching your belly, not your back.

FYI: Rogue is testing the nuclear powered turbo cold smoker again... :uh-oh:

[Teallaura]

words matter because of the intention behind them.

If someone is using 'liberal' as a curse word, then it is offensive. If someone uses that same word as a badge of honor, then it is not.

IF someone wants to use "disabled" on a government form to categorize your kid so he can get some benefits then it is not an attack on your son or his condition, it is just a label to help them get him benefits. If someone mocks him and uses disabled as an insult then it is an offensive word, but so could any other label you come up with.

You know, it's taken me a while to come to grips with the fact that I am disabled - but not because of the word, but because it's hard to admit I can't do things I used to anymore. I've either been in college full time or working - or both - my entire adult life. Admitting that I no longer have what it takes to hold down a full time job - or any job - is hard.

Being called disabled isn't.

[Cow Poke]

You know, it's taken me a while to come to grips with the fact that I am disabled - but not because of the word, but because it's hard to admit I can't do things I used to anymore. I've either been in college full time or working - or both - my entire adult life. Admitting that I no longer have what it takes to hold down a full time job - or any job - is hard.

Being called disabled isn't.

This has kinda the same flavor that my daughter described after her husband died, and she'd go into a restaurant, and the hostess would greet her with "one?"

Jenny said "that was like a kick in the teeth". But she realized they didn't mean it that way. It just forced her to realize "I'm alone now".

[Teallaura]

Unfortunately, Sparko - it's not really that simple. In any communication, there is both a transmitter and a receiver (or receivers). Words that have one intention by a transmitter may be received entirely differently by a receiver.

I have long held the position that, that if someone wishes to communicate something, it is the their responsibility to ensure the message is properly received (which is actually consistent with basic communication and telecommunication theory). After all - they are the one trying to send the message. If the receiver is unable or unwilling to receive the message, and there is little the transmitter can do about it and they might as well give up. It's one of the reasons I step away from discussions after a while (usually too LONG a while). But if the receiver is willing and able, then the communicator needs to do everything in their power to use language the receiver will understand and parse correctly, and then check in that the message has been properly understood.

My wife and I STILL go around on this occasionally. She sends me a text about X, Y, or Z and thinks the very fact of sending it has "communicated her message." I sometimes don't check texts for hours, after which the text may have been buried in a long chain of texts and I simply miss it. She gets angry that I am "ignoring her." Or she'll shoult a message up the stairs while I have my noise-canceling headphones on and I'm working (reviewing audio for this or that course). She assumes she has "communicated" but I never got the message. I keep telling her, it's not my job to have my antenna perpetually in the air in case you want to communicate with me - it's YOUR job, if you want a message received, to make sure you have my attention before you transmit.

The same applies with language. If you want a message received, be aware of how language is being received on the other side. I failed abysmally at that in the recent abortion discussion. In an attempt to show that the two sides were both being insistent from the starting point of their own presuppositions, and each side was trying to protect a right they felt was precious an under attack, I used the word "slavery." That was a very provocative word, and started a back and forth in which I continued to use the word, only making this worse. If I had stepped back and said, "this word is getting in the way of my message - what other word can I use instead," I might have had better luck communicating what I was trying to say. That's not to say I would have been agreed with - just that the core message might have been received correctly. As it was, I'm fairly sure it wasn't.

This isn't clear - you're trying to be offensive, right?

Okay, seriously, communication is two-sided. Both the speaker and the listener have responsibilities. One of them is for both to recognize that the other is human and will make mistakes. The speaker won't be clear enough; the listener will misunderstand. Assuming malice where none exists only makes communication less likely to occur - and rifts to grow wider.

[Teallaura]

hey don't look at me. When we restored tweb I just redid the smilies we had before and then added some new ones. There are some other odd spellings in the smilies too.

Cir is a great guy but his spelling took a left turn at Albuquerque sometimes. Hence : rasberry; instead of :raspberry:

[carpedm9587]

This isn't clear - you're trying to be offensive, right?

Okay, seriously, communication is two-sided. Both the speaker and the listener have responsibilities. One of them is for both to recognize that the other is human and will make mistakes. The speaker won't be clear enough; the listener will misunderstand. Assuming malice where none exists only makes communication less likely to occur - and rifts to grow wider.

I don't disagree completely.

(parse THAT one )

I agree that the reciever should be willing to receive the communication, or the entire effort is fruitless. However, if I have a mssage to communicate - thge primary responsibility, IMO, is on me to ensure that my communication is framed in the way most likely to achieve my desired results.

I am a teacher by profession. I cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. But I CAN cause a person who is absolutely willing to learn to fail to do so by not structuring my message correctly. I have a responsibility, as the source of the message, to do everything I can to ensure the message is correctly received. If I fail to do so - and the message is not correctly recieved, I need look no further than myself.

[Cow Poke]

I agree that the reciever should be willing to receive the communication, or the entire effort is fruitless. However, if I have a mssage to communicate - thge primary responsibility, IMO, is on me to ensure that my communication is framed in the way most likely to achieve my desired results.

And a huge part of that is knowing your audience, and being able to discern how receptive they are. But, primarily, it's on the communicator, not the communicatee.

[carpedm9587]

And a huge part of that is knowing your audience, and being able to discern how receptive they are. But, primarily, it's on the communicator, not the communicatee.

You are learning, :grasshopper:


We REALLY need a grasshopper emoji

[Cow Poke]

You are learning, :grasshopper:


We REALLY need a grasshopper emoji

And brevity. Did I mention brevity?



The mind can only absorb what the seat can endure.