[at-l] Psychology 102

[daviswnj@nji.com (William davis)]

Jim,
     Sorry to have misrepresented the context.  I was going off memory and 
thats all I could remember.  I will be more carefull next time!

Dachs (who has been on the road for the last 8 weeks and needs to get back 
into the woods and is hoping to section hike NY, in a week, in early 
October!!!)


>From: "Jim and/or Ginny Owen" <spiriteagle99@hotmail.com>
>To: at-l@backcountry.net, daviswnj@nji.com
>Subject: [at-l] Psychology 102
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:38:11 +0000
>
>
>Dachs wrote:
>>
>>Amen to that!
>>
>>Since we're on a psycology thread, what is it about human nature that 
>>makes
>>folks feel that they have to argue the bejesus out of a topic(witness the
>>frequent micro parsing of posts).  Is it the need to have the last word?
>>Is it the need to be the one who is right?  Is it the need to feel
>>superior(witness the recent post by Jim Owens who is clearly articulate 
>>and
>>intelligent and who's posts I always enjoy,  basically tells RnR that he's
>>so superior that he'll "eat his lunch" if he attempts to debate with him)?
>
>Dachs -
>I've appreciated your posts as well.  But if you're gonna quote me, I'd
>appreciate it if you'd get the context right.  If you read that again, what
>I said was that RnR's version of MacKaye's ideas sucked swamp water and 
>that
>he needs to use other sources if he's gonna make any kind of a case for his
>"message".  I said specifically that I'd "eat his lunch if he tried to use
>MacKaye to justify his arguments".  Or words to that effect. I said nothing
>about the results of debating in general.
>
>You might want to sit down for this part ---- for reasons I won't enumerate
>right now, I'm treading on dangerous ground here -
>
>When RnR leaves the testosterone, emotions, preconceived notions and
>prejudices behind, he's perfectly capable of a reasoned and reasonable
>argument/debate.  He proved that in private conversation about the 
>so-called
>"Chinese incident".  He did a very nice, properly cynical, logically 
>correct
>and well written analysis of part of that incident.  Of course, that's only
>"my" opinion.
>
>Unfortunately, he screwed it up by misconstruing, misinterpreting,
>misunderstanding or maybe just plain lying about my motivation in that
>conversation.  But I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the
>doubt on that.
>
>
>>I hope I don't sound too nieve.  If I do then forgive please me.  Even
>>though I love people I am baffled by human behavior.
>
>Aren't we all?  Baffled, that is.  I thought you had some good questions
>there - and some good answers.  Other answers might include pride, ego,
>testosterone, prejudice, stupidity, contempt for the opinions of others,
>righteousness, evil intent, preconceived notions, defending ones territory 
>-
>among a host of other reasons.  Or since, as humans, we're ALL mentally ill
>to some degree or other, you could just write the whole thing off as
>insanity  :-)
>
>Walk softly,
>Jim
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT-L mailing list
>AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp