| |
|
Ah - right. So, you accept that your behaviour was contemptible, and apologised for contemptible behaviour? I see. I was misled by your statement:
OK. I do. You have clearly shown how you arose at that conclusion, based on what I wrote. So, I apologise that my poor communications skills put both of us in that situation.
That is, the part where you stated that you apologised for your poor communication skills, and not for what you actually said. Because you then said:
I would like to add a caveat. What I wrote, and what you guessed I was insinuating, are the not the same thing.
That is, I thought, apparently erroneously, that what you meant was not what I thought you meant. Therefore, I further assumed in error, you did not in fact feel that your insinuation was contemptible, and that you were apologising for failing to communicate your (non-contemptible) meaning, while making it clear that I was wrong to behave as if the (contemptible) meaning you had actually communicated was in fact your meaning.
So, the best I can understand from this is that what you are saying is:
What you, Haus, believe was my meaning was not my meaning. However, my actual meaning, although it is not what you believe it to be, was also contemptible. Therefore, I appologise for the contemptible meaning (which is not yet clear) of my comment, and also for the poor communication skills which meant that you understood me to be communicating a different contemptible meaning.
Or:
Although what I wrote and what you guessed that I was insinuating are not the same thing, nonetheless you correctly identified that what I wrote _was_ in fact insinuating what you believed it to be insinuating. So, although I have philosophical issues with the idea of one thing being identified as another, and also with the idea of absolute truth, in practical terms you, Haus, correctly identified what the insinuation (a discrete entity) of what I wrote (another discrete entity) was, and correctly identified, inasmuch as one can assign "truth" or "correctness" to such matters in a world of relatives, that it was contemptible. As such, philosophical issues aside, I apologise for the contemptible insinuation.
In either case, that's fine - you have admitted that yoou were out of order and that your claim, as it is written, should be treated with contempt, for either reason. No worries. Let's shake on it.
I would be happy to take a breather and wait for your other responses. |
|
|
