Re: ???

Posted by Ryan on June 27, 1999 at 00:35:56:

In Reply to: Re: ??? posted by Dave on June 26, 1999 at 22:52:40:

>
> He just wants a good answer to his good question, and you are refusing to give him one because of the mumbo-jumbo that you believe.
> ---------------------------------
> It was a vague question at best IMO. BTW, since you know what I believe, maybe you can enlighten me.

We had a debate about a week ago, Dave.

>
> if you want your answers to make any sense to him then you're going have to sell him on this idea first.

> --------------------------------
> What makes you think it's a him? That's an assumption. Assumptions are the root of most errors. I have no desire to "sell" anything, just share my my experience and knowledge for what it's worth.

Sorry for my sexist writing. I was an English major for a while but I switched to the more politically incorrect major of history. I never got around to taking that "Avoiding Gender-Bias in your Prose" class.

My point is, I believe that (s)he does not automatically share your idea of "All enneagram types are dysfunctional by their mere definition" (I certainly don't). And this is the philosophy you are using when you are attempting to answer his(er...) question. You might want to outline that philosophy in better detail for PseudoName so that (s)he does not wonder what the hell you are talking about.

All in malicious fun,

Ryan (who wonders which he does more, mentally or physically masturbate)

Follow Ups:

• Re: ??? Dave 05:45:53 6/27/99 (3)
  • Re: ??? Ryan 15:18:53 6/27/99 (2)
    • Re: ??? Boys, Boys, Boys PseudoName 20:10:10 6/27/99 (1)
      • Re: ??? Boys, Boys, Boys Ryan 00:12:15 6/28/99 (0)

Post a Followup