Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-04-2009, 07:51 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Lightbulb Fallacy of Logic, Pt1 (Revisited)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.
Joreth.

This is precisely what I mean about checking your assumptions. You have made your point of view well known in over 3 dozen posts on this topic. Go back and reread my post. If you still don't understand, read it again...and again...until you do. I don't have another 8 hours to explain it all over again, and I'd have to get out an easel and my logic textbooks which don't post on here so easily.

Pay attention to the very beginning of my first part, and all of the second part. It shows a reasonable set of assumptions which would lead someone to come to the very same conclusion which you have been kind enough to repeat here. The last part shows exactly where those assumptions can be disproven, and thus are logically false.
Your quote above also indicates to me that you have not actually read the words...only your interpretation...and I'm curious if you are actually able to separate the two. Mono never said he didn't agree with SC about anything. Only that he knew some poly people who agreed with SC.


I want to make something very clear. I understand both your interpretation of the text and the how you arrived there. That does not mean the interpretation is correct. I'll refer to it now as Interpretation J in the following proof:

Unstated Assumption A: All three sentences form single statement.
Unstated Assumption B: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Proposition C: SC said this book is New Agey
Proposition D: Mono's text

If A and B and C and D, then E:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.
If E and B then J: (aka Interpretation J)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Mono claimed that it was his monogamous nature (biological or learned is irrelevant) that made him agree with a book's new-ageyness.
Proposition F:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Ceoli and I were both pointing out that what makes a person poly or mono is not what makes Mono as an individual agree with or not agree with "new age" spirituality.
If J and F then H:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
The statement is incorrect factually and it is a logical fallacy called a non-sequitor. The statement is wrong no matter who says it.
(...same applies to how many times a statement is said.)


So...to review, you're logic is internally valid.
A+B+C+D -> E
E+B -> J
F
J+F -> H



So, Back to my previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
Let’s back track to the first interpretation, and the first basic assumptions:

Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Read the text, and particularly the last part of his revised explanation (from post 67 by the way) assumption 1 is false.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Again, from his revised clarification, assumption 2 is false.
Where assumption 1 & 2 are the same as A & B, they are both false as should have been evidenced elsewhere in that post.

C is True...SC said what he said.
D is True...mono said what he said. (and it a moment it won't matter how he worded it)

A+B+C+D -> E
False + False + True + True -> False
E = False


I'm going to focus for a moment on a specific portion of E:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was.
Nowhere in D did Mono offer *his* opinion of the book. He only said what he had heard from other poly people that he knew. E does not follow...and is therefore also non
Therefore...E is False...twice

E+B -> J
False + False -> False
J = False

F is True.
I'll spend a moment here, and this specific part I will also address to Ceoli. F as I see it, is basically a generally accepted truth that the attributes of a group does not determine the attributes of an individual. This is Fallacy of distribution.
Overcoming this fallacy is a key driver in the progress we have made over the last few generations to oppose racism, sexism, or most of the other -isms. I doubt there would be many, if any (...maybe the Russian Spammer), people on this board who would disagree with this. I also expect that the passion in which this has been pursued would probably be commended or admired by many here, including some of those on the other side of this particular discussion. I'm hoping a more generic and impersonal discussion about F will bare this out, such as this one...I have high hopes.
F = True

J+F -> H
False + True -> False
H = False

If and only if...A and B had been true, and E actually followed from D at all, then you could have proven H.

However, due to False premise, the following applies to E, J, and H:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
This is a factually incorrect and logically fallacious statement. Period.


Now, I know there was never any personal malice in your words.
I understand there has been a lot of confusion about your bluntness and personal attacks. And I know you never intended to make a personal attack on Mono, regardless of what may have been perceived. So I expect you'll understand the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Not an attack:
Your statement was incorrect.
Joreth...your statements were incorrect.

The bulk of your 40 posts attempting to prove by assertion on this thread has frankly bludgeoned the living tar out of the subject, were based on and contained incorrect statements, (and now cost me no less than 11 hours that I could have been sleeping...and I haven't even got to Pt2 yet) in addition to bogging the thread down in argumentum ad nauseam.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
LOL I now have this image in my head of Spock standing there saying "that's highly illogical" and someone jumping up and down, red-faced and sputtering, calling him a loose cannon.
If Spock had reached H as you did, and saw this...he'd be green faced.

The upshot of Vulcan's...they'd at least admit it…and might even go find a more productive, and abstract discussion to have that didn’t involve emotional human names.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-04-2009, 09:43 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Lightbulb Assumptions and Implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Given that there as been a ridiculous amount of drama, at this point I seriously doubt anybody really has a clear view of what the actual original point was.
Right there with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
What ImaginaryIllusion is describing is a fallacy of communication, not a fallacy of logic.
Actually, I'm very much targeting the logic of the argument based on false premise. It was primarily to do with Joreth's argument, and I had thought yours was different but I wasn't sure how, so we can address it here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to state where he sees the false assumptions.

II:
Quote:
Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.
No, it is not there because it is not the statement I took issue with. I omitted it on purpose. Not because it disproves the point I was trying to make but because it was irrelevant.
This particular point is anything but irrelevant. Mono's words were interpreted to mean that he was speaking about all mono's having the same opinion as him. His statement in the original post is an explicit nod to the fact that he knows not all mono people are like him. This was clarified further down the thread where he indicated that he may be the only mono who thinks the way he does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Quote:
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Actually no. When a person says "Funny how a mono mind can read the same words differently" that person is speaking to the nature of monogamous minds. The only assumption I made here was that the words that were written were the words that were indeed intended. If Mono's intention was to describe the nature of his mono mind, then he should have replaced the word "a" with "my".
This is why I presented my interpretation of the text. While I'm sure as far as the actual English grammar is concerned, you are correct. However, if this thread is going to teach us anything, it'll be how words can be misinterpreted based on assumptions of the receiver, that do not match with the intentions of the sender.
I would submit that your interpretation of his meaning was not just the words, but also related to your work in anti-oppression. I would reinforce this by the fact that the same alteration of meaning you make to the text above by changing "a" to "my" is implied by the statement you chose to ignore “Not that all monos see things my way.”
Similarly I submit that repeatedly harping on a statement someone made can lead them to believe they are being personally accused of thinking the wrong way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now, let's break down Mono's reply to the original post again:

Quote:
Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow.
Since the comments he's referring to are about how Crow perceived a book as too new-agey, it thus implies that many poly people that Mono knows perceive the book the same way.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
He then goes on to say:
Quote:
Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently.
This implies that the thing that is driving him to see the book differently is his monogamous wiring. Since the issue in question that was being talked about was the perceived new-ageyness of a book it then follows that what he is perceiving differently is the perceived new ageyness of a book. So therefore, it follows that he was claiming that mono minds perceive the new ageyness of a book differently than poly minds.
You assumed that he is still referring to the newageyness. If that assumption is false, that which follows is false.
You assumed because he refers to the poly people he knows agreed with SC, that he somehow disagrees.
You assumed that because he spoke of a mono mind, that he meant all mono minds as opposed to poly minds.
These assumptions above are simply unstated co-premises required to complete the logical progression to your concluded interpretation.

All I saw was an acknowledgement that given the same words, a mono mind (such as his) has a different viewpoint. As far as my interpretation goes, it doesn’t even include a book….just words. My unstated Co-Premises that lead to this here are stated in my original post, assumptions 1-4.
Ironic how this point he was trying to make keep reproving itself through the course of this discussion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now the last part of the statement that I omitted:
Quote:
Not that all monos see things my way.
So right now, he has just said (or implied) that mono minds see the same words differently while also saying other mono minds see things differently than him.
Which just disproved your point. If other mono minds see things differently than him, than how could he be talking about all mono minds?! In which case the generalization that leads to marginalization does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now the actual positions of who was perceiving what in what way got jumbled in the translation.
There's an understatement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I have just laid out the reasons why I stand by my interpretation. It came out later in the thread that my interpretation wasn't what Mono had intended to say, but according to the words that were there, there were no assumptions I based my interpretation on. I based them on the logical implications that his statements made, but that is not the same as an assumption.
I have reiterated some different, and some similar assumptions above. What you say are logical implications of a statement, I say those are based on underlying assumptions which complete the collection of premises required to logically imply one thing from another. Tomato, Tomato, Potato, Potato...say it out loud if the words don’t make sense.
What I’m trying to say is that your logical implications of his statement, are not the only logical implications that can be drawn from the same statements, as I have attempted to show with an alternative interpretation.
As you say, it came out later in the thread (around post 67) the difference between what he intended, and the interpretation.

I think at around that point, there was at least the acknowledgement that what you thought he said originally, and what he meant to say were two different things. Once the miscommunication was cleared up, there shouldn't have been much else to discuss as far as that went.


I want to make sure I'm understood here Ceoli. My post here are directed at all participants. Even though I mostly took issue with the assumptions and logic behind the reasoning that lead to your interpretations, the same erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings between text and intent lead to a very long and not always entirely healthy discussion. The logical counterpoint is directed mostly for Joreth’s benefit vice yours since you and Mono had already mostly sorted out the original issue. While I borrowed heavily from your quotes as well, it is sometimes because it was the better example of the similar case being made by both you and Joreth. Based on a similar (although as I think we can see, not exactly the same) interpretation.

In terms of your original interpretation, I can see how both you and Joreth arrived at your conclusions about what the statement meant. As you have said, you stand by your original interpretation (I'm assuming as it was understood at the time) as far as what's past, and I dearly hope that with the clarification that was sorted out long ago that this is no longer an issue.

In terms of anything you want to argue about marginalization, making generalizations about groups, and how it affects minority's in society...that's your crusade. The value and validity of that work, and your passion that goes with it I don't think were ever in question, and I in no way would invalidate your arguments along those lines. (See point F in the previous post to Joreth)

In terms of anything you bring up here, I don't think there's anything of particular disagreement. You explain your points well, and I hope I've communicated my view on the matter as well.
I'm hoping we can soon put this thread to bed and move on to a more general thread such as Polyamory and Oppression. Speaking of which...I really need to get to bed....again.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
You assumed that he is still referring to the newageyness. If that assumption is false, that which follows is false.
You assumed because he refers to the poly people he knows agreed with SC, that he somehow disagrees.
You assumed that because he spoke of a mono mind, that he meant all mono minds as opposed to poly minds.
These assumptions above are simply unstated co-premises required to complete the logical progression to your concluded interpretation.
I'm just going to address this point because for me, it's the most important and speaks to how these breakdowns happen.

The issue was in the language used, not the assumptions made. There were no unstated co-premises. The premises were directly drawn from the language used in the original statements, and further supported by additional replies. If a person says one thing but means something else, then it is that person's responsibility to clarify. What I drew were false conclusions because the language that was used was not expressing the intent of the person using it. That is not the same as making false assumptions. And all of that would have been easily solved if things were clarified rather than taken as an attack.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-04-2009, 03:43 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Okay. If we are going to be such hot shot communicators and preach that on these forums can we please get to the point?

What do you want Ceoli in order to end this?

What do you need to hear?

I personally need to hear that you are sorry for the mix up, I wish this had gone differently, I hope we can move on with as little damage done as possible and that you are sorry you used Mono as an example of someone who is oppressive in their language.

We get your point at this point. Personally I got it long ago. Its a good point and I believe we have started addressing it on another post even (poly and oppression) so for the love of all things holy can we please end this so I for one can not endlessly get messages about this thread and know its because its put to rest.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Okay. If we are going to be such hot shot communicators and preach that on these forums can we please get to the point?

What do you want Ceoli in order to end this?

What do you need to hear?
I don't need to hear anything. I'm just responding to points made about the things I said.

Quote:
I personally need to hear that you are sorry for the mix up, I wish this had gone differently, I hope we can move on with as little damage done as possible and that you are sorry you used Mono as an example of someone who is oppressive in their language.
I made an apology waaay back in the thread after Mono decided to resign. That apology still stands. But I can't say that I'm sorry that I used Mono as an example because again, it wasn't about Mono, it was about the language.


Quote:
We get your point at this point. Personally I got it long ago. Its a good point and I believe we have started addressing it on another post even (poly and oppression) so for the love of all things holy can we please end this so I for one can not endlessly get messages about this thread and know its because its put to rest.
You can unsubscribe from this thread in the user control panel so that you don't get any more e-mails if you don't want to.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-04-2009, 04:21 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Because this thread is almost completely comprised of my comments being misquoted, misinterpreted and misrepresented over and over again, I do take this personally. Call me a baby, whatever.

Because this thread chose to use my own quote to form it's foundation and is titled with a big "vs" it was received as confrontational because that is what versus indicates. Any one trained in communication/conflict resolution and mediation, which I am, would recognize the flaw in this approach.

Find another way to approach the topic and stop injecting broken record, petty and unproductive arguments please. I've heard it all before, am completely aware that some people simply need to feel right in order to move on, which will never happen by the way so feel free to expend as much energy as you wish. This is a public forum so feel free to publicly beat your head against a brick wall.

It's really too bad because it takes away from the value of other comments which are very productive.

Peace and Love
Mono
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-04-2009, 04:39 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
It's really too bad because it takes away from the value of other comments which are very productive.
Ironically, the thread was getting pretty productive when we were talking about the ideas behind it. If you're hearing a broken record it's because I'm merely responding to the same thing being brought up over and over again. I'm not bringing these things up over and over again. I was trying to stick to the original point the whole time. But that doesn't mean when I'm being accused of attacking that I won't just leave it un-addressed. And I wouldn't expect that of anyone else either.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-04-2009, 05:02 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
[...]titled with a big "vs" it was received as confrontational because that is what versus indicates.
"Versus" can also indicate a comparison/contrast of two or more things.

Comparison = how two or more things can be similar

Contrast = how two or more things can be different

It does not HAVE to be confrontational. Of course, if a person has been trained as a fighter or as military personnel (according to one possible analogy), it certainly could be RECEIVED as "aggressive" or "confrontational".

Last edited by NeonKaos; 12-04-2009 at 05:09 PM. Reason: formatting
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-04-2009, 07:02 PM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Lightbulb Lunchroom Trauma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I'm just going to address this point because for me, it's the most important and speaks to how these breakdowns happen.

The issue was in the language used, not the assumptions made. There were no unstated co-premises. The premises were directly drawn from the language used in the original statements, and further supported by additional replies. If a person says one thing but means something else, then it is that person's responsibility to clarify. What I drew were false conclusions because the language that was used was not expressing the intent of the person using it. That is not the same as making false assumptions. And all of that would have been easily solved if things were clarified rather than taken as an attack.
This is an area where you and I may have to agree to disagree.

Language is not an exact thing. The same words can have different meanings depending on context, both in conversation and the larger society. And I really don't care how much training in English you, or anyone else may have. I don't care if this had been brought up by Strunk and White. No single person is the end all be all authority of what the words mean. And no one, and I mean No One, on this board is expert enough at communication, English, and all regional nuances to be 100% sure of what is meant by any non-trivial expression in an environment such as this.

The poster meant what they meant, and wrote a port attempting to express what they meant. English being imprecise, that expression may be interpreted by a receiver as meaning something different.
You read the post, and drew false conclusions from it.

You're placing all the responsibility on the sender to ensure the words express their intent.

If that is the case, then how did your own statements get mistaken for attacks? What words did you use? How should you have written them instead? Why do you still not realize how your words could be taken for an attack, when that was not your intent, even when people have told you over and over and over again that your comments were being hurtful to them? Could it be for the same reason that the poster of your targeted statement did not understand why you came to your mistaken conclusion that was different from his intent, regardless of how many times your said over and over and over again?

By your own statement above, it would be your responsibility to clarify your intent and change your words accordingly.

And if people are harping on you on this it is simply to hold you to the same standard that you yourself put up for them.


Here's my view:
Communication is a two way street, and the responsibility relies with both the sender and the receiver. The sender may have to revise the expression for the sender to understand the true meaning. The receiver has to feedback to the sender to make sure they actually understand what is being said. BOTH have to be listening....and BOTH are responsible.

You wanted the original words changed. They were.
Others have wanted an apology from you...a part of which you've offered, and it's up to them if they accept that as complete.

Mono has express the lynchpin of this and why he took it as personal...part which even I missed in the very title of the thread.
This may be a good lesson to take away from this. If someone wants to discuss an abstract ideas like language, philosophy, etc, that come up as part of a discussion, then maybe it should be removed from the immediate context of the persons involved and the original thread.


I'm going to wrap this up with a parable from my own life:
In Elementary school, I was having lunch on day. At the table across from me was a fellow A, whom I had considered a friend, but lately he had become involved with other kids that I didn't get along with so well, and joining in with them at my expense. So I wasn't feeling so good about A, feeling as if there had been some betrayal he had visited upon me.
When A opened his lunchbox, he took out a banana that was way past prime. Bad fruit, bad apple thought I...and I made a passing remark at him, "hey, it's just like you A, ...rotten". My intent: To let A know that I thought he had been a 'rotten' friend.

I barely had the words out of my mouth when the rest of the table broke out in an outroar about what I had said, and they immediately started hounding on me about my statement mercilessly! I thought I had told A that he was a rotten friend, ...something which would not be out of line, so I couldn't understand for the life of me why everyone else was so upset at me.

All I could do was sit and stare blankly at them, and A sat staring blankly at me. The ruckus was so bad the teacher had to come over right away, and took A and I outside the room to work out our differences.

Now, I'll put the rest of the context back to explain the Table's side...
In my other post I assume that most people do not believe in the -isms anymore. This had a lot to do with going through school when I did when they were erasing -isms from young minds before they'd take hold. I don't know if the timing was related to the country's spanky new 4 year old constitution which included a charter of rights and freedoms, but suffice to say, -ism's were bad. I knew it, and I accepted it, I embraced it. So had all the other kids in the class.

The school I attended was about as diverse as the class you would see watching South Park. There was about 5 kids across 2 classrooms that would be considered visible minorities.
Since -isms were wrong, no one picked on them, they picked on the redread. (This isn't actually cause and effect...the minority kids were well integrated into the social cliques, and the redhead kid was easy to pick on)

By now I think everyone can see the train wreck coming.
The banana that was way past prime had turned brown. I don't know from where, but A's family would have immigrated at some point from India, so his complexion was a similar colour to that of the banana.

Apparently no one heard me say the word "rotten"...they only heard the word "brown" and they immediately jumped all over me for it. They thought I had just made a statement about A's skin colour, so and concluded I must be making a racist comment and they were going to take me to task for it.

Me? I was bewildered because I could not understand them...I did not understand what they were mad at me for. It simply did not make sense to me why they were so upset at my comment. All I said was that A was rotten, as the banana was rotten.

Eventually, when things calmed down, I discovered what they interpreted. Their interpretation was something to the effect of: A is brown like the banana, so therefore A is rotten like the banana.

Speaking about how language is imprecise, I do not yet know if there is a word to describe the depths of my feeling when I discovered what those other kids had interpreted from my words. Mortified, horrified, crushed, none of them even come close. -isms were wrong, and racism was one of the worst IMO. There simply had been no link in my mind between the colour of the banana and the colour of his skin. It was so far out of my mind it took 12 kids yelling it at me to finally realize that they HAD made that connection in interpreting my words. Not only was it unacceptable to think that way for me, but I had 12 kids attacking me for thinking in a way that both they and I considered morally wrong. The accusations of being racist absolutely destroyed me.

Nothing I say here can really do justice to the emotions I felt that say, suffice to say it was one of the most traumatic moments of my formative years. While I believe A accepted my profuse and immediate apology for what was interpreted, I don't think I was ever able to explain it strongly enough how separate the issue of colour was in my mind.


Was my intent wrong? No.

Were my words wrong? No.

Was the receivers understanding of the meaning different from my intent? Yes

Why? They drew (what they thought) were logical implications due to similarities in colour of the nouns contained in the sentence.

Were their objections based on their interpretation understandable? Yes. They would have made Ceoli very proud. And if the interpretation had been correct, I would have been agreed with them.

Were their conclusions incorrect? Yes.

Did I feel attacked? Hell yes!

Did I clarify my meaning to A and offer recompense? Damn right I did!

Did he accept my apology so that we could both move on without hard feelings, or leftover impressions between him or others thinking I was racist? Yes.

Did I ever get an apology from the 12 kids that jumped all over me? No. It would have been nice though. It would have been great value to me, at little cost to them.

Was this an example of effective communication in a safe environment for sharing ideas? Not what happened in the lunchroom.
The one on one with A in the hallway we could speak calmly and explain exactly what each other meant in both directions...yes.

Would I ever want to see this kind of experience revisited on anyone?? Not even if they were my worst enemy!
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-04-2009, 11:51 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Can you imagine how long he took to wade through all that LR? Amazing!
Yeah I can imagine and it moved me to know he made the effort.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mono/poly, monogamous

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02 PM.