rhyee wrote:
Bart wrote:
By the way, Tina and the other two girls on the line in the last hour
of this Tailgate said you were redundant.
BOB: Bart, you're listening but not hearing.
Pam Wall said I was redundant. Tina and Jill disagreed with Pam and tried to explain to Pam that they grew to appreciate the themes I appeared to be repeating over the last year and a half.
Shame on you, Bart.
Bob Neveritt
haahah That's great. I appreciate you sharing the difference.
Now, if I might respond, you're "reading" what I've written
and taking that as the entirety of my knowing.
Of course I heard all of that. I didn't care to specify and parse
it all out (i.e., precisely who said what), because I wanted to
hear your response to the notion of redundancy itself.
I know Pam said it. I also know Tina responded as if it were
a service, cutting Pam off, and that Pam didn't then bother
to correct her.
I hear and know all. ahaha
For the record, conversing with you is always a lively and novel
experience. And there are always new perspectives uncovered,
discovered and shared - that's the point of engaging. Why else
would one do so?
The redundancies are elements / factors that are unchanged,
regardless of when or where we perceive ourselves to be.
One of these unchanging factors is "what you see isn't real". This
is redundant, because it applied then, and applies just as much
now. There may be differing ways to phrase this, but some factors
cannot get left behind; they bear repeating.
If it weren't for redundancy, many people would miss gems that both
you and iON have shared.
Tina's comments were correct. For some people, certain points won't
sink in unless they've been heard three or four times.
"The knowing behind text in post is larger than it appears."
