> Alison Croggon [to David Bircumshaw]:
>
>> I find it distressing . . .
>
> David Bircumshaw:
>
>> if any remarks of mine have caused her [Alison] distress . . .
>
> That 'if', Trevor, is in the conditional because I really don't know what is
> going on in this row. It would be an understatement to say I'm bewildered by
> it all. . . .
Dave,
The (excerpted) section above is, as far as I'm concerned, the kernel.
Alison told you clearly, unequivocally, without the least ambiguity, that
your remarks had distressed her. Your response is to apologize "if" you have
distressed her.
The rest of the material you introduce in your post strikes me as an evasion
or avoidance of this. You're told how your actions have affected someone,
yet you persist in not recognizing that fundamental fact. Maybe if you read
and attended more closely to the negative responses you frequently receive,
you feel less bewildered.
Let me rephrase: the rest of your post is not merely an evasion, but an
example of exactly the sort of introduction of personal matters onto the
list to which Alison stated she had an aversion. Given that I had echoed her
aversion in an earlier post today, why post this stuff in answer to me? Once
again, it's at best irrelevant. Given its evident recent effects, one might
use stronger language.
I'm aware you've not charged me with 'trying to stir things up', and I'm
glad of that, because I'm not. What I am trying to do is to get you to
listen, fully, properly, to what's been said to you. "If" doesn't wash.
Best,
Trevor
|