Hello...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
It's the BEST answer. Less paperwork and you don't get sued, but not the answer.
I couldn't agree with you more and I don't recall anyone
disagreeing with that position. However, that wasn't the original query being made by Canna-sensei. If you'll recall, his question
specifically centered around one of those "mind-numbing street violence situations" where the perp just is
not going to be placated. (You've already written about a perp that was calm and everything seemed fine and then BAM... just because he felt like that was the thing to do regardless... a good example of the mindset that Canna-sensei was referring to.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
...diplomacy can work just as well if you can place the doubt in the threats mind.
Darn tootin'!
![Image](http://www.xpres.net/~gmattson/ubbs/biggrin.gif)
I have
no problem walking away "with my belittled tail between my legs" and letting someone(s) feel like the Big Man in charge.
![Image](http://www.xpres.net/~gmattson/ubbs/wink.gif)
I also don't have a problem making them wonder if they'd survive if they pushed it... whatever works to avoid going physical. As you know from experience, using VSD has many facets and which tool we choose out of the VSD toolbox is one of those delicate decisions that it takes time to learn and understand. Sometimes you can win with VSD by saying "sorry, let me buy you a drink", sometimes you can win with VSD by saying "I understand where you're coming from, let's talk about it some more" and
sometimes you can win with VSD by saying "fine, who wants to die first?" I've used all those approaches successfully, but I don't recommend that just anyone jump in and try them. The decision on which approach to take is something that I don't know how to teach... for me, it's just been "intuition". (Yes, ladies... Us neandrethals have that too.
![Image](http://www.xpres.net/~gmattson/ubbs/wink.gif)
)
And I've been in situations where there was just no talking my way out of it no matter how much I tried. It was that type of situation which Canna-sensei was referring with his original question/comments in the other thread.
I still feel like there should be some way to come to a mutual understanding based on having the same set of data & criteria to work with. If my position is incorrect, I want to know why so that I can take appropriate action to correct. In the previously mentioned thread, I saw an example of an inconsistency which I couldn't reconcile. I attempted to point out exactly
why I felt there was an inconsistency and tried to be very specific and accurate in both terminology and phrasing
without making personal attacks.
I truly could not and can not fathom the opposite position and belief that was being claimed. It
may be viewed as an attack for me to pick apart someone's position or belief in that instance, so I
also pointed out the semantical descrepancies which I felt were being made. I even provided the proof/basis for my position as far as the semantics went. That consideration was called "wiggle room" and to be quite honest with you on this point, I ignored and never mentioned the fact that
to me the characterization of my use of specific definitions as "wiggle room" to somehow get around things was insulting. A prime example of how things can be misconstrued. I ignored those feelings because I had enough respect for and felt comfortable enough with the people having the discussion that I was sure they wouldn't be that way.
I have to concede that I can understand us coming to different conclusions based on life-experiences. I still feel that if we discuss our positions keeping the facts and semantics in mind, we should be able to at least understand each other's positions. In that previous thread (and to this day) I still do not understand the inconsistencies that went along with taking a moral high-road of pacifism, not believing in
any violence
ever (that happening being a "moral failure"), and yet conceding the need for "violence" (a physical response) in some cases. I won't get into the semantical descrepancies, that horse has already been beaten to death in the previous thread, but I will point out again that I never had any personal problem with anyone on that thread, but truly wanted to understand how those contradictions could be reconciled.