The Icon, the NBA finals, other stuff

[dlgood]

The Icon: It's the DD(X), the US Navy's 21st-Century Destroyer. As some folks may or may not know, I've been working in the Defense field for some time. My group at work is in the process of firming up the product line brochure and communications plan for Navy PEO Ships. I happen to really like that photo (the bigger one is beautiful) so it's my current icon of choice. (My father also happens to be a senior systems engineer on the DD(X) program for another firm.)

Cleveland Indians outfielder, Coco Crisp, may have the coolest name in sports.

NBA Finals: For anyone on this list that actually follows pro-ball, I must admit I'm pretty shocked at just how much of an ass-whipping the Pistons are laying on the Lakers. Almost as shocking as Tom Tolbert and his hideous 1970's style plaid suits - so ugly even Herb Tarleck wouldn't wear them.

Last Friday: My thanks for those who offered empathy for my complaints. As it turned out, I'm a big whiny crybaby, with nothing much to moan about. The office was empty, I got tons of work done, and there was zero traffic on the roads after all.

Ralph Wiley died last night of a heart attack at the age of 52. For those who don't follow sports, you probably won't know or care. Wiley wrote 28 cover articles for Sports Illustrated, had a column on ESPN.Com Page 2, and was the author of several books including Why Black People Tend to Shout. Wiley was funny, sharp, and witty - one of the rare sports commentators who could speak in vernacular without being lame, who could offer social commentary without seeming like a pompous blowhard, and who had genuine insight. I'll miss reading him.

Comments

I am curious

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Why you are taking the time to respond to me, even though I pretty much am not going to change what I believe and have even used you to illustrate what I perceive to be what is wrong with much of the world (similar to how you wanted to used what I said about heroes to show something)?

I do not see what "value" this has for you that conversing with someone like my husband doesn't have. The value in it for me is that it keeps me from unpacking and allows me to uncork those liberal brain cells that have to remain behind closed doors because of the communities I operate in. It also showed me a few things that I will post about later in my journal.

My point though is if you have a "lack of interest in following up this particular line of inquiry" why respond at all, let alone in the manner you did? To be honest, it would give you the opportunity to extol the virtues of that "ship" not for the benefit of my husband who won't change his mind, but the other people that read your journal. I know that is why I tend to respond to people that I know won't change their mind. It isn't for their benefit, but that of my audience.

My husband attacked that "ship." Your response was a personal attack. If you don't see the difference, no wonder our country is so messed up.

Re: I am curious

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Lets think on it thusly.

In communicating in my journal, you and your husband want to accomplish a few things.

1. You wish to say what you want to say - in whatever manner you wish.
2. You wish to have me respond to what you've said.

In my journal, I've given you leave to say whatever you want. You can have #1. If you want #2, you'll have to respond in ways that make me particularly interested in speaking to you, and on the matter you'd wish for.

Your husband, and anyone who replies to me, has the option of speaking in ways that don't annoy me. This will make me more willing to engage you, rather than ignore the substance he was initially interested in pursuing. Namely, the merits of the DD(X).

What do you want? In my journal, I have the power to respond to you however I see fit. You don't. But, you do have the power and the opportunity, through the manner in which you treat with me, to influence how I choose to respond. You can (A) use that opportunity to convince me to speak on the merits of DD(x). You can use that opportunity, to (B) motivate me to not speak on the merits of DD(X).

You got the latter. Is that what you wanted? Considering again, that you can't get (A) with me from brute force - you have to decide what the value you place on (A) is. And to what extent you might wish to moderate #1 (the manner in which you say whatever you wish to say) in order to achieve better result on issue #2 - my response.

To be honest, it would give you the opportunity to extol the virtues of that "ship" not for the benefit of my husband who won't change his mind, but the other people that read your journal.

I have that opportunity with or without your husband.

Bring it back to Checkpoint. If the Council of Watchers wants to have any influence over the manner in which Buffy exerts her power (regardless of whether they think she's right or wrong) they have to play ball with her. They need her more than she needs them. They want more from her than she wants from them.

Whether or not I want to extol the virtues of that ship at length, I don't need your husband to do it. For me it's an option - an option he failed to motivate me to exercise.

You may wish to keep this in mind the next time you wish to get somebody to do something they aren't compelled to do. Perhaps, you've learned a valuable lesson. That if you wish to get people to respond to you, you'll have to work a bit and perhaps commit a bit toward motivating them to do so. Or, alternatively, you've learned yet again that you are far to superior to do that. And can remain contendly free from having to compromise your "forthrightness".

I'll be okay either way.

Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Your behavior and such has illustrated to me in no uncertain terms exactly what sucks about the Security Community and why our foreign policy is so efed up.

There are more than two parties involved in any discussion in the journals or on the boards. There is the journal owner/original thread originator, the commenter and the audience. Much of what I say I really don't expect a response from the owner/originator. It'd be nice, but not really necessary. I write for the same reason that Angel fights, to be someone. When I speak, I define myself with every word. What words I choose to use will determine who I am.

I could play ball. I'm not untrained in rhetoric. I choose not to do that. To do so would portray me unrealistically to the audience, that third party involved here. When speaking with someone who isn't going to change his mind and just wants to give me a lesson, whatever lesson that is, why would speaking with such an individual be more important than voicing my opinion to the general audience?

and this is a lesson that the US needs to learn. When we speak to nation X, we aren't just speaking to them. The entire world may be and probably is listening. When we are duplicitous in our dealings with one nation, even if it is in our national interest not to be with another, why should any other nations trust us? When we support a dictator and then years later go after him, how does that make us look?

To be perfectly honest if I want the merits of that "ship," I can do one of two things, I can pick up The Navy Times or I can google it. The wonders of living in an information age. I was more curious to see you justify it, since it not only informs me about the ship, but you. Every time someone opens his mouth/moves his fingers he speaks about two things, the topic and himself.

The fun part of this exchange was I got EXACTLY what I wanted. I didn't want to know about some "ship." I wanted to know about you. Thank you for providing me with this information. With or without your cooperation, this information can be obtained. Your lack of cooperation spoke rather loudly.

Am I far superior for my forthrightness? That is for the audience to determine. I illustrated who I was and I am quite content with what I said and how I said it. I didn't just not compromise my forthrightness. I didn't compromise myself.

Maybe you learned a bit about me.

Re: Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

When speaking with someone who isn't going to change his mind and just wants to give me a lesson, whatever lesson that is, why would speaking with such an individual be more important than voicing my opinion to the general audience?

Why then, not just cut me out, and speak directly to the audience?

Re: Actually I have learned a valuable lesson, maybe even several

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Because I said "more important," not that there isn't any merit to discourse or potential discourse. My husband is a historian. I would probably classify your approach as public servant/politician. My approach is psychology. I am above all else interested in people. Over on the board, it was the Spuffyites rather than Spuffy itself that fascinated me. This annoyed many of them.

That is my approach to most things in life. I am a psychologist. I wouldn't have studied it, if people and why they believe or do what they do didn't fascinate me. You are a person. You fascinate me.

That doesn't mean that presenting myself honestly is going to take precedence over this fascination. I'm pretty self-centered and I fascinate me too. Sometimes I amaze myself with what I write. I go back and think, "Wow, I wrote that."