Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

  1. #1 Is anger a sign of righteousness? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

    We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

    “I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

    Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

    Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness? 
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?
    If there's two people protesting about the same issue, but on different sides, are they both righteous because they're both angry?

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument.
    What? Again, everyone sees pundits on TV, or elsewhere, that they don't agree with, but they don't automatically assume they're righteous (or even sane in the case of Glenn Beck) because they're angry. Just because righteous causes may make people angry doesn't mean angry people are righteous.

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.
    I have yet to see someone use rabies in an argument, unless it's about putting down a dog.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Anger is a sign of self-righteousness. That's all
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I posit that all so-called "negative" emotions (anger, worry, jealousy, greed, shame, grief, embarrassment, fear, etc) are the result of a person's failure to accept reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?
    In my opinion, no. Anger is an emotional response to a situation, not a rational one. If someone is driven by their emotions and acts upon them, they are most likely acting out irrationally. This is why adults created time-out for children. Also, i'd have to agree with Arcane_Mathematician's response to your question as well, it's perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    Anger is an emotional response to a situation, not a rational one. If someone is driven by their emotions and acts upon them, they are most likely acting out irrationally. This is why adults created time-out for children.
    So if someone kills my child, and it makes me angry, it's not rational to act on that anger as he threatens to kill another one of my children? I disagree. I think it's very rational, and serves a very good purpose. Now, one can argue that in our current society anger is less practical, but to call it irrational and childish is naive and short-sighted. Anger is a very useful emotion, and has evolved for good reason. It would be premature to dismiss it so fully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    Anger is an emotional response to a situation, not a rational one. If someone is driven by their emotions and acts upon them, they are most likely acting out irrationally. This is why adults created time-out for children.
    So if someone kills my child, and it makes me angry, it's not rational to act on that anger as he threatens to kill another one of my children? I disagree. I think it's very rational, and serves a very good purpose. Now, one can argue that in our current society anger is less practical, but to call it irrational and childish is naive and short-sighted. Anger is a very useful emotion, and has evolved for good reason. It would be premature to dismiss it so fully.

    I agree, but you're adding variables to the equation. For example, what if the man killed your child with a gun, would it be rational to act upon your emotions and chase him down? I agree that emotions have a meaningful purpose, but they need to be thought through consciously before you act upon them because they are unconsciously driven reactions. I don't believe that emotions could be said as being rational because they obscure mental clarity. I'm not dismissing them prematurely, i'm simply saying they should be thought through with a conscious effort before being acted upon. Otherwise, you may be apologizing to people for your actions later in the day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I agree with inow.
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?
    In my opinion, no. Anger is an emotional response to a situation, not a rational one.
    Here I think you're saying righteousness must be rational, so it excludes anger. As inow pointed out, anger may be rational. I would add that "good things" like righteousness may be irrational, and yet good.

    So often rationality gets bandied as the owner of all good, but (in my humanistic opinion) rationality itself is devoid of morals.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Anger is a secondary emotion. Therefore something else is causing it, and that underlying emotion behind that anger hides it.

    Anger isn't righteousness, it is an evolutionary created defense mechanism designed to activate the fight or flight response.

    In the modern times it is still used for the same function albeit a dubious one as there is more or less no way to use it anymore. I will not be suprised if anger disappears in the next few thousand years.


    righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”
    It is actually the concept created by religious leaders to justify the anger (and following pillaging from non believers) against people who do not follow the same ideology or doctrine, whatever way you want to see it.

    We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.
    This anger stems again from a more baseline emotion, perhaps one of fear, or loss or jealousy. I am more inclined to believe that this kind of anger stems from one wanting riches, not willing to put in effort to get it and as a result justifying that idleness with anger in saying that they are 'money grabbers' or 'theives'.

    Its all a matter of perspective on that one.

    “I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.
    Everyone is right in their own opinion. Only the truly open minded see this and strangly enough, do not get angry at others for a difference of opinion or lifestyle. Live and let die/live whatever, thats what I say.

    "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

    Most often than not you will see that men and women that get angry are merley protecting their egos, which have gotten rabidly out of control and actually become that person.

    Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?
    I think it signifies ones stubborness and ignorance as to the real issue. Anger is good, if it used as passion fuel for a better life for the person who holds the anger. Ironically once that change has occured there will be a great reduction in that persons anger. Use the anger to get rid of it.

    Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?
    Yes, and only in so far as the person who is angry is angry at others opinions and ways of life. I for instance get cross at many things; traffic, slow drivers, useless drivers, unconfident drivers, flakey women, lag. Thats about it. Well there are others, and these angers come from me not getting my own way.

    I would love for women to not flake, I would love for every driver to have great skill and I would love perfect connections in every call of duty game, but I know that shit just ain't the truth. So deal with it, thats the way it is and no amount of 'righetousness' will get you anywhere. It will just bottle up and ruin your life.

    Bottom Line:

    Thats my opinion, nothing more (well you will find the evidence in your friends and family, strangers alike also and even nature and nuture elements of psychology)

    You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Lets go for a drink coberst.

    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I agree with inow.
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?
    In my opinion, no. Anger is an emotional response to a situation, not a rational one.
    Here I think you're saying righteousness must be rational, so it excludes anger. As inow pointed out, anger may be rational. I would add that "good things" like righteousness may be irrational, and yet good.

    So often rationality gets bandied as the owner of all good, but (in my humanistic opinion) rationality itself is devoid of morals.
    Awe, that clears it up. I didn't intend for it to come off that way and you seem to be making 'insanely good sense to me' (southpark reference btw). I don't feel that my first response should be characterized as clear and effective communication on my part. I seem to have not added righteousness into my response even though it should have been included.

    I was more so just showing my opinion of anger linked to irrational behavior. This action could be either righteous or not, but it's irrational because the mind is not free of emotion. In my opinion, emotional responses would be ones that are not thought through, an irrational response. This response could be either good or bad, depending on the situation. Emotions cloud the brain with responses that cause irrational behavior because mental clarity is not present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    I was more so just showing my opinion of anger linked to irrational behavior. This action could be either righteous or not, but it's irrational because the mind is not free of emotion. In my opinion, emotional responses would be ones that are not thought through, an irrational response. This response could be either good or bad, depending on the situation. Emotions cloud the brain with responses that cause irrational behavior because mental clarity is not present.
    That's a very ...manly... point of view. Some people think most clearly in emotional terms, but stagger when pressed to rationalize their thoughts. Maybe what Quantime said about flakey women? There I think the cloud confounds two equally clear & consistent modes of thinking. The subjective cloud might be within an individual also, i.e. your report that your emotions are a muddle. What part of you would say that?



    One of my favourite Dickens characters is Betsy Trotwood. This unsatisfied old maid bottles a lifetime of fury at the world, but she vents her rage in a harmless fashion: by flying off the handle at any donkey (and the stupid boys and men driving them) that threatens to trespass upon the green in front of her home. Rushing outside to send donkey drivers up the royal rocket is a daily exercise. Having scolded those scoundrels along their way, Betsy then resumes a tranquil life with her domestic companions.

    There's a picture of righteous anger, that does more good than harm, that we would strain to rationalize.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That's a very ...manly... point of view. Some people think most clearly in emotional terms, but stagger when pressed to rationalize their thoughts. Maybe what Quantime said about flakey women? There I think the cloud confounds two equally clear & consistent modes of thinking. The subjective cloud might be within an individual also, i.e. your report that your emotions are a muddle. What part of you would say that?



    One of my favourite Dickens characters is Betsy Trotwood. This unsatisfied old maid bottles a lifetime of fury at the world, but she vents her rage in a harmless fashion: by flying off the handle at any donkey (and the stupid boys and men driving them) that threatens to trespass upon the green in front of her home. Rushing outside to send donkey drivers up the royal rocket is a daily exercise. Having scolded those scoundrels along their way, Betsy then resumes a tranquil life with her domestic companions.

    There's a picture of righteous anger, that does more good than harm, that we would strain to rationalize.
    1) What about my point of view would be considered manly? Why should it be described as manly?

    2) The definition that I am using for rational is as follows:

    1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
    2. able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice

    Both of these definitions are being used by me as describing rational as mental clarity not afflicted by emotion. Therefore, my understanding of the irrational would be the opposite which is not having mental clarity, but lacking it by an occurence such as emotion being present. Again, i'm leaving righteousness out of the equation for my response. I'm using this numbered format to make sure that we are communicating clearly through language.

    3) I could not understand the second paragraph. What does flying off the handle mean? What is a royal rocket? Could you use a more simple analogy that I could comprehend the meaning of? I could not comprehend what was being conveyed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Anger is a chemical response to opposition and pain. And when it comes to opposition the term "rightious" is highly subjective.

    Example 1A: knight templar believes he is doing gods will by slaying infidels. The infidels in this case being an innocent and defenseless woman and her child. He is angry at them and kills them - is he rightious?

    Example 1B: woman and a child enounters a knight templar, the knight templar slay her child. And the woman picks up a knife and kills the knight. She is angry, but is she rightious?

    Example 2A: A man leaves a pub. Angry teenager sees him and stabs him, takes his wallet and leave him to die bleeding on the sideway. Is the angry teenager rightious?

    Example2B: A man leaves the pub. Angry teenager tries to stab him but misses, man is angry and wants revenge and knocks the kid down and beats him to death. Is he rightious?
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Anger is a sign of self-righteousness. That's all
    Anger is an emotion.

    Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

    What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

    Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

    ”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

    The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

    “Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

    Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

    “It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

    First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

    Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

    The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

    Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

    Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

    I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

    In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.

    Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime

    Thats my opinion, nothing more (well you will find the evidence in your friends and family, strangers alike also and even nature and nuture elements of psychology)

    You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Lets go for a drink coberst.

    I would say that some of your remarks indicate that some of what you say is more than mere opinion. I would give them the grade of "considered opinion". They are one significant step above opinion. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen because almost everyone has an opinion about almost everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    [



    One of my favourite Dickens characters is Betsy Trotwood. This unsatisfied old maid bottles a lifetime of fury at the world, but she vents her rage in a harmless fashion: by flying off the handle at any donkey (and the stupid boys and men driving them) that threatens to trespass upon the green in front of her home. Rushing outside to send donkey drivers up the royal rocket is a daily exercise. Having scolded those scoundrels along their way, Betsy then resumes a tranquil life with her domestic companions.

    There's a picture of righteous anger, that does more good than harm, that we would strain to rationalize.
    Well said!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime

    Thats my opinion, nothing more (well you will find the evidence in your friends and family, strangers alike also and even nature and nuture elements of psychology)

    You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Lets go for a drink coberst.

    I would say that some of your remarks indicate that some of what you say is more than mere opinion. I would give them the grade of "considered opinion". They are one significant step above opinion. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen because almost everyone has an opinion about almost everything.
    How is it going anyway? I understand you share a lot of philosophies and have been absent from the science forum for a while. How is it keeping? Your empire of thought?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime

    How is it going anyway? I understand you share a lot of philosophies and have been absent from the science forum for a while. How is it keeping? Your empire of thought?

    I started posting on these Internet forums over four years ago. I was studying the works of many great thinkers in an effort to comprehend why we human do the things we do.

    I posted while studying because it helped me to learn. I found answers to many of my questions--at least answers that I found to be acceptable.

    I also posted in the effort to convince others to get an intellectual life. If more of us do not quickly become much more intellectual sophisticated than we now are our civilization has little chance of surviving another 100 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    1) What about my point of view would be considered manly? Why should it be described as manly?
    To find emotions perplexing (and best ignored) is stereotypically manly.

    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    2) The definition that I am using for rational is as follows:

    1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
    2. able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice

    Both of these definitions are being used by me as describing rational as mental clarity not afflicted by emotion. Therefore, my understanding of the irrational would be the opposite which is not having mental clarity, but lacking it by an occurence such as emotion being present. Again, i'm leaving righteousness out of the equation for my response. I'm using this numbered format to make sure that we are communicating clearly through language.
    I think there are two major senses of the word rational. One is exemplified by the economist's meaning: devoid of sentiment. E.g. it is rational to pick the gold fillings out of corpses. The other sense of rational is rather enormous, and that's how the word gets overused: clear-headed, articulate, smart, etc. It effectively means "good thinking". By this definition all other thoughts, motives, explanations, etc. are inferior or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    3) I could not understand the second paragraph. What does flying off the handle mean? What is a royal rocket? Could you use a more simple analogy that I could comprehend the meaning of? I could not comprehend what was being conveyed.
    To fly off the handle is to strike far out of bounds, as when the massive sharpened head of a swung axe slips off and sails through your neighbour's window. Today it means a surprising explosion of anger. By modern technology we say go ballistic.

    Speaking of ballistic, to send (someone) up the royal rocket I guess you'd call a Pongism. It's like the posters Ophiolite times Dr. Rocket at their most vigorous: arrogant and destructive. The hapless victim feels as though he's been served up into the air and obliterated. It's basically the receiving end of a ballistic, e.g. "I got sent up his royal rocket."
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    1) What about my point of view would be considered manly? Why should it be described as manly?
    To find emotions perplexing (and best ignored) is stereotypically manly.

    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    2) The definition that I am using for rational is as follows:

    1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
    2. able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice

    Both of these definitions are being used by me as describing rational as mental clarity not afflicted by emotion. Therefore, my understanding of the irrational would be the opposite which is not having mental clarity, but lacking it by an occurence such as emotion being present. Again, i'm leaving righteousness out of the equation for my response. I'm using this numbered format to make sure that we are communicating clearly through language.
    I think there are two major senses of the word rational. One is exemplified by the economist's meaning: devoid of sentiment. E.g. it is rational to pick the gold fillings out of corpses. The other sense of rational is rather enormous, and that's how the word gets overused: clear-headed, articulate, smart, etc. It effectively means "good thinking". By this definition all other thoughts, motives, explanations, etc. are inferior or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by korben
    3) I could not understand the second paragraph. What does flying off the handle mean? What is a royal rocket? Could you use a more simple analogy that I could comprehend the meaning of? I could not comprehend what was being conveyed.
    To fly off the handle is to strike far out of bounds, as when the massive sharpened head of a swung axe slips off and sails through your neighbour's window. Today it means a surprising explosion of anger. By modern technology we say go ballistic.

    Speaking of ballistic, to send (someone) up the royal rocket I guess you'd call a Pongism. It's like the posters Ophiolite times Dr. Rocket at their most vigorous: arrogant and destructive. The hapless victim feels as though he's been served up into the air and obliterated. It's basically the receiving end of a ballistic, e.g. "I got sent up his royal rocket."
    That's actually a very well thought out response, thank you.

    I find that the most difficult part of communication is that as direct as we think we're being, our minds are not directly linked between eachother. We have to talk through language which sometimes creates problems in understanding. I'm glad you took the time to be both literal and explanatory in your response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •