Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Possibility, Permission and Consequences: Fudged Issues

  1. #1
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts

    Possibility, Permission and Consequences: Fudged Issues

    Some people here will know in some small way that I come from an unconventional family. In many ways, we are the paragon of an English family. Very British, very English. In many other ways, though, we're not. Many of our traits and positions seem very socially conservative, while others have been very radical in former times and only seem less so these days because societal assumptions and expectations have come to meet us.

    We didn't hunt for sport even when such hunting was the hallmark of "civilised" life. Even when we hunted game for food, we didn't hunt for sport. To refer to my "personalising hypothesis", we considered and consider that we are not people who will kill for fun even when we will kill for food. It has never seemed like a small and pedantic distinction. We do not even need respect or compassion for animals to avoid wanting to be somebody who kills for enjoyment, but those three together are three very good reasons.

    A century and more ago it was felt necessary that, when somebody unaccustomed to our ways married into the family, that person, male or female, should be rigorously instructed that nothing less than complete marital equality would be accepted; a wife was not her husband's chattel, and neither was he her keeper. Our women would not accept junior positions and neither would our men tolerate their wives to be subservient. It is very difficult today to believe just how backwards the view of the sexes was in former times but diaries from those times reveal much. I am lucky in having many such diaries written by family members of those times, and from their perspective the absurdities of society were all the more obvious and so they were not obfuscated by sheer assumption of universality.

    And it's that assumption of universality about which I wish to talk.

    One of the ways in which my family is socially conservative, though, is in language (which I think partly fuelled my interest). That is not to say that the common image of the linguistically conservative is true and that we dislike those who speak differently than we do, only that in our own speech at least we prefer to retain distinctions which are at risk of being lost, such as the subjunctive: I admit I cringe a little when I hear people say "if I was you" — if only for the loss of complexity in our language.

    One of the features which is slipping out of modern English in some places is the distinction between two modal auxiliaries: "can" and "may". How often do we hear phrases such as "can I smoke in here?" — of course you can if you have a lighter, a cigarette and an ability to co-ordinate a very basic task; whether you may is an entirely different question. And what is may but a question of who minds?

    I made mention in the previous incarnation of TOT that my grandmother says that it is the job of elders to teach their charges "to conquer impossibility". Having grown up with that attitude and in that environment, perhaps it is only natural that I find myself objecting to this confusion. Often, I think it is purposefully inculcated along the lines of Orwellian Newspeak. In any case, there are two problems as I see it. The first is the common confusion between "may" and "can" aforesaid and the other is the deletion of agency.

    If you were out one day and you got a text message from somebody saying "your house has been left in a complete mess", you probably wouldn't respond with "oh, what an interesting and personally relevant little datum. Thank you for informing me" but rather something like "who left it so?" You see, the first sentence is what's called a passive conjugation ("has been left"). It promotes the object of an ordinary, active sentence into the subject and often deletes the former subject (the "agent", the person or thing responsible). This information can of course be included ("has been done by X", which offers the probably more likely response "by whom?")

    Now in addition to pure grammatical agency, there are other, broader kinds of agency. This is the agency which is deleted and which deletion really irritates me. When somebody says that you "cannot" do something, they are not just saying that you may not, they are implying a kind of universality or objectivity to their order. But even when they say that you "may not", they are implying an authority which is never stated.

    This same kind of agent-less construction can also be found with "can". How often do we here people say "it cannot be done" or, perhaps more annoying, "it just/simply cannot be done" as though the entire universe conspires to prevent something ever happening and how silly everybody is who even considers the possibility. They do not say "you cannot do it", because then you would be tempted to ask why not you specifically. And they do not say "nobody can do it" because that would sound absurd and oddly exhaustive, but it is the natural active form of the phrase "it cannot be done (by anybody)".

    In a similar way, when people say "you may not do this", they are implying an authority which is never stated because any sentiment which declares what somebody may or may not do implies a superior authority which either permits or prohibits. The child's answer to this, often forgotten by adults, is "who says so?"

    This is important, because an authority whose existence is not acknowledged cannot be made to justify or explain itself. When a parent tells a child "you may not do this" and the child responds with "who says so?", when the parent responds with "I say so" the child might then insist that their compliance with such a prohibition is dependent upon a good explanation. Certainly when I was a child such expectations of explanation, and particularly of explanations which were logically satisfying, were always to be found wherever authority was exercised.

    Often people say that you cannot do something when what they mean is that you may not, and often what they mean in saying that you may not is that they do not wish you to. For all the people in the world happy to tell you what you can or cannot do, they are often telling you what they do or do not want you do and then leaping from that position to an assumption that because they do not want you to do it, you shouldn't do it or it's not possible.

    This connects with the middle section of my post here about the assumption of values from facts. I do not believe people will be free while they continue to let the distinctions persist between what can be done, what may be done and in the case of the latter who permits and prohibits those actions and states. At the same time, I do not think people will be consciously respecting the free-will of others while they unconsciously make those assumptions on their own parts.

    For me, part of personal or spiritual sovereignty is the freedom to do and be whatever I wish to do and be. It does not follow that freedom to do something includes freedom from the consequences of doing it. We do not have to involve a concept of authority in such a worldview. We do not need to make the assumption that one person has the right to govern the life of another. With such a concept, authority and permission become pretty much irrelevant ideas, and all that matters is who has the capacity to enforce consequences that do not automatically follow. That is not authority but power, and even if authority should be respected (I utterly deny it), power does not even have the veneer of credibility and respectability that authority has.

    In my view, nobody has the ability to declare what I can and cannot do. When I was younger, somebody told me that nobody could live forever and I said "just because nobody has, do not assume nobody will". Of course, the idea of eternal life is about the most repugnant thing I can imagine; I firmly believe that death is the last, best consolation of life. I don't think that sounds morbid (though I am not blind to the possibility lol)

    Also, in my view, nobody can tell me what I may or may not do. What I may and may not do is dependent upon authority, and I recognise no authority over my life and so the idea that I may not do something is irrelevant.

    For me, humans should focus on neither, but rather look at the pragmatic issue of consequences. What consequences are there for my actions and, if those consequences do not follow by the force of natural law as we know it, like getting wet in water, but are imposed by somebody or something else, is that power to impose consequences fair? It is a much more pragmatic way of dealing with things than appealing (or yielding) to authority. What is authority but a fiction? Make sure that power is applied fairly and justly, and then who would care for authority?

    I cannot remember the last time I asked somebody if I could do something. Can I share a PDF? That is not a request for permission, but the question of one who does not know how to upload an attachment. May I? I make a point of avoiding it. I do not seek permission. The closest I get is asking "do you mind if... ?" That is a courtesy, not a request for permission. It is saying "would your response be favourable if I did X? Please be informed that your answer will only inform and not dictate my decision to do or not to do X."

    In many ways, power is the lesser problem; without the spectre of authority in the way, the problems human society has with power would be sorted in moments.
    Last edited by Seikou-Kishi, 17th September 2013 at 08:22.

  2. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Breeze (18th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), dianna (17th September 2013), Frances (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), jagman (17th September 2013), john parslow (18th September 2013), KosmicKat (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), modwiz (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  3. #2
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Posts
    334
    Thanks
    8,192
    Thanked 2,508 Times in 335 Posts
    My simple little mind is having a hard time processing this. I was born and raised in The Bronx, where everyone says "Yo".

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to GCS1103 For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), dianna (17th September 2013), jagman (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), modwiz (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  5. #3
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by GCS1103 View Post
    My simple little mind is having a hard time processing this. I was born and raised in The Bronx, where everyone says "Yo".
    LOL, I was born into the spiritual and intellectual poverty of JERSEY where saying "Yo" was actually being polite!

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  7. #4
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    I used to have a yo yo! Does that count?

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013)

  9. #5
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,982
    Thanks
    13,502
    Thanked 9,646 Times in 1,886 Posts
    S-K
    In a similar way, when people say "you may not do this", they are implying an authority which is never stated because any sentiment which declares what somebody may or may not do implies a superior authority which either permits or prohibits. The child's answer to this, often forgotten by adults, is "who says so?"

    This is important, because an authority whose existence is not acknowledged cannot be made to justify or explain itself. When a parent tells a child "you may not do this" and the child responds with "who says so?", when the parent responds with "I say so" the child might then insist that their compliance with such a prohibition is dependent upon a good explanation. Certainly when I was a child such expectations of explanation, and particularly of explanations which were logically satisfying, were always to be found wherever authority was exercised.

    Often people say that you cannot do something when what they mean is that you may not, and often what they mean in saying that you may not is that they do not wish you to. For all the people in the world happy to tell you what you can or cannot do, they are often telling you what they do or do not want you do and then leaping from that position to an assumption that because they do not want you to do it, you shouldn't do it or it's not possible.

    This connects with the middle section of my post here about the assumption of values from facts. I do not believe people will be free while they continue to let the distinctions persist between what can be done, what may be done and in the case of the latter who permits and prohibits those actions and states. At the same time, I do not think people will be consciously respecting the free-will of others while they unconsciously make those assumptions on their own parts.

    For me, part of personal or spiritual sovereignty is the freedom to do and be whatever I wish to do and be. It does not follow that freedom to do something includes freedom from the consequences of doing it. We do not have to involve a concept of authority in such a worldview. We do not need to make the assumption that one person has the right to govern the life of another. With such a concept, authority and permission become pretty much irrelevant ideas, and all that matters is who has the capacity to enforce consequences that do not automatically follow. That is not authority but power, and even if authority should be respected (I utterly deny it), power does not even have the veneer of credibility and respectability that authority has.

    In my view, nobody has the ability to declare what I can and cannot do. When I was younger, somebody told me that nobody could live forever and I said "just because nobody has, do not assume nobody will". Of course, the idea of eternal life is about the most repugnant thing I can imagine; I firmly believe that death is the last, best consolation of life. I don't think that sounds morbid (though I am not blind to the possibility lol)

    Also, in my view, nobody can tell me what I may or may not do. What I may or may not do are dependent upon authority, and I recognise no authority over my life and so the idea that I may not do something is irrelevant.

    For me, humans should focus on neither, but rather look at the pragmatic issue of consequences. What consequences are there for my actions and, if those consequences do not follow by the force of natural law as we know it, like getting wet in water, but are imposed by somebody or something else, is that power to impose consequences fair? It is a much more pragmatic way of dealing with things than appealing (or yielding) to authority. What is authority but a fiction? Make sure that power is applied fairly and justly, and then who would care for authority?

    I cannot remember the last time I asked somebody if I could do something. Can I share a PDF? That is not a request for permission, but the question of one who does not know how to upload an attachment. May I? I make a point of avoiding it. I do not seek permission. The closest I get is asking "do you mind if... ?" That is a courtesy, not a request for permission. It is saying "would your response be favourable if I did X? Please be informed that your answer will only inform and not dictate my decision to do or not to do X."

    In many ways, power is the lesser problem; without the spectre of authority in the way, the problems human society has with power would be sorted in moments.
    I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

    At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

    Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

    My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

    As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ria For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  11. #6
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    I hope we haven't pissed off SK. We are all in a bit of a silly mood.

    Come back SK, just joshing....and taking the mickey.

    That's what family does ('or do' - now you've got me flummoxed).

    Last thing we want to do on here is watch our p's and q's.

    Sooz

    PS: Just for the record I flunked school pretty much. Everything I learnt or 'learned' (shit, I'm paranoid now), is what I learnt when I LEFT school, not when I was IN it.

    Edit: Malc hasn't turned the swearing filter on yet....get yer 'shit, piss, fucks' in while yer can, LOL!! Sorry Malc - tugging forelock, you know how us Ozzies are?.....bastards at the best of times.
    Last edited by Sooz, 17th September 2013 at 07:37. Reason: Flouting the swearing filter....yee ha..

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013)

  13. #7
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,982
    Thanks
    13,502
    Thanked 9,646 Times in 1,886 Posts
    You can repeat it all on my behalf.
    Sooz
    Edit: Malc hasn't turned the swearing filter on yet....get yer 'shit, piss, fucks' in while yer can, LOL!! Sorry Malc - tugging forelock, you know how us Ozzies are.....bastards at the best of times.



    I'm to much of a lady, pa ha ha...............lol

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ria For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  15. #8
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Ria View Post
    I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

    At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

    Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

    My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

    As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.
    Brevity is everything.

    3 short bullet points should do it.

    Because 3 is everything in a nutshell.

  16. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013)

  17. #9
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Ria View Post
    I think this to be an important thread based on the points made and should be extrapolated further.

    At the risk of being very annoying, I would like to ask you to simplify this, I know this is a challenge and carries some ignominy with it to do such a thing.

    Permit me to say I think the information most critical and little understood and needs to be.

    My suggestion is to develop this further for the hop polloi to understand. I believe you are better placed than most to do so.

    As I understand your point is to elucidate for all, "personal or spiritual sovereignty" If I have understood you correctly I would concur this to be an imperative.
    Of course there is no ignominy. Who is really ignorant, the one who asks for clarification or the one who shies away for fear of looking ignorant? It's silence that makes people stupid, not questions.

    There are three different but related concepts when it comes to exercising freedom. The first is the idea of possibility. Some things might seem impossible given the state of human knowledge, but then things like breaking the sound once seemed impossible. If people had decided that because it was "impossible" to break the sound barrier there was no point in trying, we'd still not have broken it.

    Even when people say that we can or cannot do something from a purely practical point of view, as with the sound barrier, I think people should be less willing to accept such restrictions and more willing to admit that even if current worldview or physics calls something impossible, that is an assertion and not an absolute fact. There is a second, much more common category of possibility in which people say that one cannot do something which one clearly can do, and what they mean is that they do not want you to do something. Double yellow lines on the side of a road might say that you "can't" park there, but if you pointed your car in the right direction and followed all the normal procedures, you'd find yourself as capable of parking on double yellows lines as on any other stretch of road.

    What somebody means in such a position is that you may not park in such a place. As soon as we realise that there is a (perhaps deliberate) confusion between what people can do and what people may do, we begin to realise that most impositions of impossibility, like parking on double yellow lines, requires an authority — somebody who has declared that something is not permissible in a way that demands obedience.

    The point is that when somebody says that we cannot do something, the temptation depended upon by those making the injunction is that if we believe we cannot do something, we're less likely to question the validity of the injunction than if we are told that we may not do something. If somebody says "you can't go out looking like that" a lot of people are overcome with self doubt and wonder how their personal style will be judged by others, but if somebody ever said "you may not go out looking like that", most people would get annoyed very quickly and wonder who the hell they thought they were to say such a thing.

    But even to say "you may not" hides issues which should be addressed. When somebody says there is something somebody may not do, they are implying a kind of authority which has not been established but only hinted at. If people replaced the phrase "you may not do X" with "we do not wish you to do X" or "we order you not to do X", people would know who decided that people cannot do that and the logical response of "and why the hell not?" would be all the more obvious. In that position, we would finally have the people responsible for such impositions being obvious and justification demanded of them at every touch and turn.

    OK, so maybe the reason the government says not to park on double yellow lines is because roads with them are narrower than most roads and thus during busy times of the day it would be impossible for traffic to move aside to let an ambulance through. That would be a fitting, worthwhile and logical explanation for any prohibition against parking on double yellow lines. The difference between saying you can't or may not park on double yellow lines and saying "the government does not wish it because it makes ambulance access difficult" is great. One respects the free will, independence and intelligence of the listener who is asked to follow the rule because the rule makes good sense, the other insults all three.

    If we were less willing to hear such words as can and may, and instead asked who imposed requirements on our behaviour and why, not only would we realise how few of the things we are told that we "cannot" do are rooted in anything of subtance but also we would develop a habit of demanding justification. Any order which cannot be justified does not deserve compliance. Take the example of the person who tells another that they shouldn't go out dressed in a certain way. When we take it through the stages:

    1. You can't go out like that. Since there is no physical limit on it, this is not true. Unless we were trying to go out in an elaborate costume that was too big to fit through the door but how often is that the case?
    2. You may not go out like that. That's more accurate, but what is permission? Anybody in that situation would probably realise that there were now two people in the equation: the person wishing to go out dressed in a certain way and the person who considers it their right to monitor your attire. It is an arrogant assumption, though, because what they mean is option number 3 and they phrase it this way out of an assumption of authority.
    3. I do not want you to go out like that. That's the most accurate, and in that position most people would say that they do not care what somebody wants. It states the person's position without implying that there is anything objective about their opinion. They state their dislike openly and without any arrogant assumption that their desire is universal (though the assumption that what they want is automatically important is still on the arrogant side).
    4. Are you sure it's a good idea to dress like that? In response to your query, I make you aware of a reason why you maybe wouldn't wear that that you might not have considered before. This option respects the autonomy of the individual and demonstrates the principle that a good, reasonable idea is not afraid to explain itself. If there is a good reason for not dressing a certain way (dressing lightly in the middle of winter, for example) that is one thing and worth listening to. If there is no good reason, the idea, the request or imposition has no reason at all to be respected in the slightest, regardless of who expresses it.

    ...
    ...

    to be continued
    Last edited by Seikou-Kishi, 17th September 2013 at 08:42.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Breeze (18th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), john parslow (18th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), modwiz (18th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013)

  19. #10
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    ...
    ...

    And that's where it comes down to a matter of personal sovereignty. The first two options completely ignore personal autonomy, while the third is more upfront but still not a great respecter of the other person's autonomy because any idea for how people should live their lives, even in small ways, insults their intelligence as well as their autonomy when it does not give them a reason which makes good sense to them. If a man said to you that you had to be well covered up, even in the middle of summer, because you couldn't dress certain ways and what he really meant was that he was a Muslim (while you weren't) and in Islam women are required to dress a certain way, for all it would be a reason it wouldn't be a sound reason to you because you do not accept a premise of the argument (the truth of the Quran and Islam).

    It might be binding upon you if you were Muslim too and held the same beliefs that he held (which is by no means automatic), but it would be binding upon you only because you accepted as true all the arguments he made. In that case, he would not be so much an imposing authority as a reminder that you were on the verge of dressing in a way which contravened your own beliefs and values. Only in the last example, in which a person who ordinarily would say "can't" or "may not" or "I don't want you to" offers an idea and gives his reasoning for it — only in this example are you respected as an autonomous individual.

    And in the same way that we should not accept the first three on the principle that it disrespects our autonomy and intelligence, at the same time, I do not believe we should commit them, either (for the reasons I've given, which is the important part). I think it is time people looked deeper at commonplace ideas like the way people talk and see the unspoken implications and assumptions in them. I think we need to realise that when we use those lines in talking with others, we're doing the same disservice to them that we should not accept being done to us. I think it is inculcated in us by society, and by government particularly, not to question these things and what it reveals and so for that reason alone I think it is a good idea for us to start questioning them.

    My usual response these days to being told that I cannot do something is "I have the capability". If somebody says that I may not do something, I ask on whose authority and for what reasons. The lack of a satisfying answer precludes any chance that I will comply except by coincidence. If somebody says that they do not want me to do something, I tend to think the suitable response is "why?" (or the less equivocal "why should I care?"). If somebody tells me that they do not think something is a good idea and proceed to tell me why, if I accept as reasonable the justification that they give, and believe it is completely relevant, then I might decide to follow their advice, but when I do it will be of my own informed consent and nothing else. I am not complying with an order, merely agreeing that an idea I hadn't thought of is a relevant and good idea and therefore changing my intention of my own free will.

    And at the same time that we cannot hear those patterns of thought without having our own intelligence and independence infringed upon, we cannot really speak in that way without doing the same to others. We cannot say "you can't do that" in the place of "that might not be such a good idea, because..." without assuming that what we have to say imposes impossibility on others in exactly the same way that society does it to us. While these assumptions continue, I do not think humankind will be able to resolve its problems with authority and power because most expressions of them will pass unquestioned and uncriticised and therefore we will not realise them for the artificial impositions that they are by nature.

    Quote Originally posted by Sooz View Post
    Brevity is everything.

    3 short bullet points should do it.

    Because 3 is everything in a nutshell.
    Oops, sorry ... although there are four bullet points in the first post. Can that count? Lol

    Quote Originally posted by Sooz View Post
    I hope we haven't ****ed off SK. We are all in a bit of a silly mood.

    That's what family does ('or do' - now you've got me flummoxed).
    Not in the slightest, and I absolutely agree.
    Last edited by Seikou-Kishi, 17th September 2013 at 08:45.

  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Breeze (18th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), GCS1103 (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), modwiz (18th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  21. #11
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,982
    Thanks
    13,502
    Thanked 9,646 Times in 1,886 Posts
    I will have to come back to this later as I have yo go out.
    Sooz
    Oops, sorry ... although there are four bullet points in the first post. Can that count? Lol
    three is her favourite number puff to 4

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ria For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Sooz (17th September 2013)

  23. #12
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    Regards the swearing filter, it wasn't me. It was 'Who Made Cods' fault, I swear.

    He made me do it.

    He's a bad influence that fella.....on young girlies like me....don't be tricked by his new avatar...

    Love Sooz
    xxx

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013)

  25. #13
    Eelco
    Guest
    Another pearl of profound insight. It makes me wonder though how you come to these thorough writings.
    Do they take time? writing, reading, rewriting until they feel grounded. Or do they just flow... reason I ask is that in my own posts even though they contain an imprint of me I always wonder afterwards and upon rereading what I wrote most of the time they lack grounding. Almost as if it was wishfull thinking put to words...
    Am I making sense?

    with love
    eelco

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Breeze (18th September 2013), Calabash (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013), Melidae (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (17th September 2013)

  27. #14
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    Very funny....

    TLDR, ..

    Sooz

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Cearna (17th September 2013)

  29. #15
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    Near Byron Bay Australia
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    14,019
    Thanked 19,398 Times in 3,150 Posts
    OMG, I didn't even press a reply quote.

    How come that stuff came up?

    Edit: Naughty SK! Lol! Malc won't be pleased.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sooz For This Useful Post:

    Altaira (17th September 2013), Calz (17th September 2013), Ria (17th September 2013)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •