Opinions on whistles to cease except from those qualified

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:07 am

I went back and re-read the original thread, again and again.

No matter how many times I read it, I just can't quite make seem to fit the responses it generated.

Bloomfield referenced his experience of both Chieftain and Overton whistles and stated his preference.

I don't think he meant it to be the Gospel According to Bloomfield--I think he was just stating which kind he has found he likes better. But Talbert took it that Bloomfield had made an overly broad, sweeping statement that he didn't feel that he was qualified to make, and pointed it out, in the process sounding like he was making a Pronouncement From On High.

So they both have a posting style that can come across as a bit arrogant, probably unintentionally in both cases, and they disagree with each other.

Big deal. Tempest in a teapot.

--James

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:01 pm

Join me for some claret, old chap?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:06 pm

Since this seems to be aimed at me, I just want to reply and clarify. James, I don't think we want different outcomes, we just have a slightly different view of how the world works. But it is unfair, and just plain wrong, to cast me as the world-weary cynic.

peeplj wrote:Actually, if you assume there are any reprequisites on politeness, then politeness never happens. Same goes for peace, tolerance, kindness...

False, unless you assume the default position is hostility. I don't. If you do, then you are cynical, not me. The prerequisite is satisfied by all those who do not approach you with hostility or unwarranted 'attitude'. In my world that happens more often than not. My default position is that people will likely be indifferent or friendly. There are hostile personality types of course, and we all have to figure out a way to deal with them.

peeplj wrote:These only start when someone extends them to someone else who doesn't deserve it.

If the default position were hostility, that would be my default position and yours too. How would we be able to transcend our dispositions and why would we want to? What would even suggest to us that something better were possible? The Hobbesian state of nature you presuppose was left behind by mammals long before humans evolved. It is something we descend into, not something we have to fight to rise above.

That said, there is something to be said for adopting your approach so long as you do it with common sense. You initially extend undeserved courtesy but you hint that the courtesy is undeserved. Otherwise you just reward bad behaviour and get more of it. It's at this point that the prerequisite really comes in. But note: I said nothing about escalating. When you are in this position you are already involved in a game of conflict, albeit not one of your own making. The best models for rational decison making in this position, for someone who wants to minimise conflict, all seem to employ one or another variation of tit-for-tat. More than that leads to escalation. Less than that leads to more of the same from the perpetrator.

peeplj wrote:Looking at the world, though, I'll grant that you in the majority opinion. Civility in discourse, kindness, politeness, just basically giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt--these are things are aren't happening much at all anymore, to the detriment of us all.

--James

No. My opinion is that these things you want are all good things and to be encouraged. I have been advocating giving the benefit of the doubt; that's what having a default position which assumes till proven wrong, that others are not hostile amounts to. Furthermore, to respond initially (when there is no doubt) with a gentle reminder of what is the decent thing to do extends this generous approach as far as it will stretch without adopting policies which our best theories of human behaviour tell us would be counterproductive. Many hostile personalities know they have a problem and learn to deal with it. But they are not on the road to Damascus only waiting for a sign and it does the cause of peace and harmony no good to pretend that they are.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:07 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Join me for some claret, old chap?

Love to!

I have no clue what claret is, though...is that kinda like Jack Daniels?

--James

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:09 pm

Wombat, please read my above post where I give up and name names.

I am sorry you thought any of my comments were directed at you; they weren't. Neither were they meant for Peter.

As far as the default state in human relations, I would have to say it's neither hostility nor aimicability: it's confusion.

--James

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:14 pm

peeplj wrote:Wombat, please read my above post where I give up and name names. I am sorry you thought any of my comments were directed at you; they weren't. Neither were they meant for Peter.

--James

Sorry James. But I wasn't really interested in self vindication. Since I think we both want the same outcomes, I'd be curious to know if you agree in principle with me.

BTW, claret is a kind of chalky red table wine. Good with steak if you like that sort of thing. The term is thought to derive from the French 'clairet', but I don't think anyone really knows.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:22 pm

peeplj wrote:
As far as the default state in human relations, I would have to say it's neither hostility nor aimicability: it's confusion.

--James

OK, enough said. Right now you could be excused for being cynical, not that I really thought you were. I hope things pick up for you really soon.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:23 pm

Wombat wrote:
peeplj wrote:Wombat, please read my above post where I give up and name names. I am sorry you thought any of my comments were directed at you; they weren't. Neither were they meant for Peter.

--James
Sorry James. But I wasn't really interested in self vindication. Since I think we both want the same outcomes, I'd be curious to know if you agree in principle with me.

Actually, I think there isn't just one default state of human interrelations: I think there are at least three.

In the young and the young adult, the default seems to be a very aggressive, defensive mindset characterised by hostility, cynicism, and aggression: a do-unto-others-before-they-do-it-unto-you attitude.

In the mature adult, this is sometimes replaced by a more open, phenomenalogical approach that tries to see and understand others' perspectives. Unfortunately, just age alone doesn't seem to cause the transition: I have known many elderly who had never reached this point, and probably never will.

Lastly, in the final years of life, acceptance and resignation characterise human relations, as the years inevitably wind toward their close and the eventuality of death becomes a certainty instead of an abstraction.

In my experience, no matter who you are dealing with, the best way to assure a mutually satisfactory relationship is to always give the other person more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, never assume you understand them, always be the first to accept blame even when it's not your fault and you can prove it, and always be the first to apologize rather or not you did anything wrong.

--James

P.S. Wombat, one thing complicating our interrelation is that we both type too darn fast!

Stu H · Post by **Stu H** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:44 pm

[quote="peeplj"]
Actually, I think there isn't just one default state of human interrelations: I think there are at least three.

In the young and the young adult, the default seems to be a very aggressive, defensive mindset characterised by hostility, cynicism, and aggression: a do-unto-others-before-they-do-it-unto-you attitude.

In the mature adult, this is sometimes replaced by a more open, phenomenalogical approach that tries to see and understand others' perspectives. Unfortunately, just age alone doesn't seem to cause the transition: I have known many elderly who had never reached this point, and probably never will.

Lastly, in the final years of life, acceptance and resignation characterise human relations, as the years inevitably wind toward their close and the eventuality of death becomes a certainty instead of an abstraction.

In my experience, no matter who you are dealing with, the best way to assure a mutually satisfactory relationship is to always give the other person more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, never assume you understand them, always be the first to accept blame even when it's not your fault and you can prove it, and always be the first to apologize rather or not you did anything wrong.

--James
This sounds an awfully lot like Transactional Analysis, as defined by Eric Berne in 'Games people play'.

His three states are:

Parent

Adult

Child (as in free your inner child !!!!!!!!)

I'm sure all of you know all about this stuff.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:26 pm

Claret is what we drink whilst sitting in our Club, smoking our pipes and blowing off casualty figures.

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:39 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Claret is what we drink whilst sitting in our Club, smoking our pipes and blowing off casualty figures.

...while sitting under the heads of all the lions we've killed. I've seen those movies.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:26 pm

Wombat wrote:BTW, claret is a kind of chalky red table wine. Good with steak if you like that sort of thing. The term is thought to derive from the French 'clairet', but I don't think anyone really knows.

I'm not a MD, or even a recording player, yet I'll venture IMHO of LIE:

1) Claret (not clairet), pronounced klah-reh, can be the French technical word in winemaking for the pure filtered prime juice you get from some red grapes. If you ferment it you'll get "rosé" wine. The juice from other varieties red grapes may be clear... then all you get is a white wine. To make red wine you have to mix the claret and the thicker juice made from pressing the skins (and seeds) remaining after you had your claret.

2) "Claret" (klah-reh) is still used in Bordeaux wider area for a country light red wine, drunk young, and common there as "table wine" without the right for "Bordeaux" official naming. It's light (closer to a rosé than to a Bordeaux) poor in alcohol contents, and quite enjoyable if you travel in the "Entre-deux-mers" area, better known for its horses and... grass-track motorcycle races.

3) I reckon "Claret" (klay-rett' or klah-rett') is also a common English "old chaps" term to designate red wine generally, and Bordeaux more aptly. It seems closer to what Weeks offered (cheers!). The term allegedly dates back to the times when the Bordeaux area was part of the Crown of England... and its wine was forced upon English nobility by King John to get some revenues.
Remember the scene at the end of Clockwork Orange with the pasta?
"Zit' ggg-ggg-good?
-- Thankyo Sir, err, pretty good claret."

4) "Clarinet" (pronounced like Internett') is also a cheap saxophone with a straight bore instead of conical, and a weird fingering...

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:31 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Claret is what we drink whilst sitting in our Club, smoking our pipes and blowing off casualty figures.

...casualty figures and war theories.

If you're going to mock someone, at least get it right.

Post by **Dale** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:25 pm

I got a request to lock this thread and it seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

If a lot of you protest, I'm sure I'll unlock it because I'm just that wishy-washy.

Dale