Have you compromised?

[j2k4]

Well, yes, but I mostly don't bother with drivel...what about my sig?

I believe that it gives away that you're of an intolerant disposition.

Oh.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need that explained, manker.

Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.

At least, by my judgement.

[GepperRankins]

I believe that it gives away that you're of an intolerant disposition.

Oh.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need that explained, manker.

Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.

At least, by my judgement.

i thought you and j'pol were the best of friends

[Nigi]

Never!!!

[manker]

I believe that it gives away that you're of an intolerant disposition.

Oh.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need that explained, manker.

Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.

At least, by my judgement.

If you thought that I wouldn't need it explained, you'd be entirely correct.

It does seem as if you need an explanation of why I made that remark but your deflection by way of speaking of those who deem it desirable, rather than focusing on those who don't - which is what I was refering to - speaks volumes.

So, yeah, sometimes one can infer more by what is not written c.f. that which is.

[GepperRankins]

Oh.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need that explained, manker.

Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.

At least, by my judgement.

If you thought that I wouldn't need it explained, you'd be entirely correct.

It does seem as if you need an explanation of why I made that remark but your deflection by way of speaking of those who deem it desirable, rather than focusing on those who don't - which is what I was refering to - speaks volumes.

So, yeah, sometimes one can infer more by what is not written c.f. that which is.

the more i write, the less sense i make

[Cheese]

My girlfriend wanted us to stay in on Friday night, I wanted us to go out. I said she could stay in and I would go out, does that count as a compromise?

[manker]

If you thought that I wouldn't need it explained, you'd be entirely correct.

It does seem as if you need an explanation of why I made that remark but your deflection by way of speaking of those who deem it desirable, rather than focusing on those who don't - which is what I was refering to - speaks volumes.

So, yeah, sometimes one can infer more by what is not written c.f. that which is.

the more i write, the less sense i make

That does seem to be the trend

[j2k4]

Oh.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need that explained, manker.

Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.

At least, by my judgement.

If you thought that I wouldn't need it explained, you'd be entirely correct.

It does seem as if you need an explanation of why I made that remark but your deflection by way of speaking of those who deem it desirable, rather than focusing on those who don't - which is what I was refering to - speaks volumes.

So, yeah, sometimes one can infer more by what is not written c.f. that which is.

What do you mean?

The ones who deem it a desirable quality?

Or the ones (like me) who believe the very idea to be hogwash?

The ones who buy the idea don't do it anyway...and are positively adamant in their judgement of those who do not; I see this as hypocrisy, and you judge me intolerant thereby?

Says a lot about you, my friend.

[manker]

If you thought that I wouldn't need it explained, you'd be entirely correct.

It does seem as if you need an explanation of why I made that remark but your deflection by way of speaking of those who deem it desirable, rather than focusing on those who don't - which is what I was refering to - speaks volumes.

So, yeah, sometimes one can infer more by what is not written c.f. that which is.

What do you mean?

The ones who deem it a desirable quality?

Or the ones (like me) who believe the very idea to be hogwash?

The ones who buy the idea don't do it anyway...and are positively adamant in their judgement of those who do not; I see this as hypocrisy, and you judge me intolerant thereby?

Says a lot about you, my friend.

Okay, so you do need an explanation.

Your interpretation has made it crystal clear that you're intolerant of people who perceive themselves to be non-judgmental. You've seemingly lumped everyone who considers themselves so in with this and said that even the people who think they are non-judgmental are, in fact, judgmental hypocrites.

So ... there is, apparently, no such thing as a non-judgmental person. What rubbish.


You see, being non-judgmental or being judgmental isn't black and white. It can't be. To be judgmental in every situation is as ludicrous as the notion of the converse. They are merely labels applied to those who are inclined to be judgmental or inclined to be non-judgmental.

It is quite possible to be judgmental in one situation and non-judgmental in another.

I tend to disagree with the implication of your sig because if you can discern when it's appropriate to be non-judgmental then it can be a positive boon.


Btw, the other thing I disagree with, concerning your sig, is the spelling of judgmental

[GepperRankins]

to be fair, the more anyone types the less sense it makes