3 Very Large Objects In Space Flying To Earth (and 'the truth')

[Ali Quadir]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

No, it's an analogy of a similar situation I supplied with the hope that you might have experienced it too.

Here you're making assumptions based on your own frame of reality and projecting them towards me as if *I* was doing something. In this case embellishing the truth. You are projecting this interpretation towards me. It is not me that is doing something. you are doing this. If you have an issue with your projections you should take it up with your ego. Instead you ascribe to me what is essentially your own contribution to the conversation.

This is the exact behavior I'm trying to draw your attention towards..

This isn't much different. That you and Ashim are both males does not mean you both speak the same language. You heard "There is a truth that I know that indicates a lot more than 3 objects are approaching" while Ashim said something much more along the lines of "I think that's a gross understatement" while failing to note from which perspective he was speaking.

But do you not see how the particular paraphrasing, as harmless as it seems, actually rejects or covers up what may or may not be the actual case? That's not what I heard.

Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean what you did hear was truth. Neither is what I heard truth. We both heard something that wasn't there.

But then again this happens all the time, our own expectations of what the other is saying fills out the details to the point where we call their positions absurd rather than concluding we must have misunderstood.

Yes, it actually happened in the sentence to which I'm replying. What was being called absurd was certainly not in reference to a particular opinion, position, belief or understanding. It was rather with regards to the legitimacy of defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support.

Yet "defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support" is to a point what I am doing. So you are indeed calling my position absurd.

To explain: Remember I did say it would be better to qualify the information. But I also said it was the readers responsibility to think about what the other person has said. When we encounter an apparent absurdity it may be more appropriate to conclude we're not looking from the right context. Instead of assuming the speaker to be wrong, we should question the context we ourselves supplied subconsciously.

I have explained this context thing before when I said that the Law of One on this forum is something I accept as a given. While on an atheist forum doing so would result in me getting my bum handed to me.

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Especially because concise communication requires all the contextual information, that we normally assume, to be repeated over and over again. Without context, communication is impossible... Even the meaning of words is context.

If I speak to you about dogs or cats but in my context I call a cat a dog and a dog a cat things get mighty confusing. Imagine I came from a world where this was the normal communication. I would blame you for not seeing the difference between a cat and dog. While in truth *I* supply that invalid context myself. Yet analogous problems are exactly what happens frequently in natural communication.