Dear phanto,

<<But I don’t need to explain [how an objective interpretation of your post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help].>>

Indeed. The lengths to which you will apparently go in order to avoid doing so, however, is rather telling. Especially when time wastage had been cited as your reason for refusal. I hope you can appreciate the apparent contradiction there.

<<Having no need can hardly be interpreted as avoidance.>>

Not by itself, no. That is correct.

<<You are the one who seems to have the need for me to explain it.>>

Indeed, I do. The reason for this is because I cannot see that which you also apparently cannot explain.

<<Rather than just dismiss it as untrue you seem to need to convince yourself that it is untrue by examining my arguments.>>

That would be one possibility, yes. Another possibility is that I am currently in the process of demonstrating that your claim was unfounded.

<<You are obviously not confident that it is untrue or else you would not be so eager to hear my arguments.>>

Obviously?

I hope you can appreciate now why such hasty assumptions can be problematic.

<<Your fragility is evidenced by your call for my reasons as to describing your post as a cry for help.>>

Not necessarily, my friend. As you can see above, your premise failed to account for all possibilities.

<<An emotionally secure person would simply examine their own conscience and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or else they would conclude that I was right.>>

An emotionally secure person may also want to demonstrate that an accusation was unfounded (perhaps as a caution to others?), because it is no trouble for them to do so.

<<You should not be so presumptuous as to pretend to know my feelings …>>

My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel. It appears as though I may have hit a nerve. If so, then I apologise.

“The lengths to which you will apparently go in order to avoid doing so, however, is rather telling.”

What makes you think I am avoiding an explanation? Where is the evidence to suggest avoidance? Just because I do not give you what you want does not mean I cannot give you what you want. It means I see no good reason to give you what you want. Do you want me to act unreasonably just to satisfy your desires?

“The reason for this is because I cannot see that which you also apparently cannot explain.”

But you do not need to see it. You have given no good reason why you need to see it. You have a conscience and that is all you need. Either you feel guilty or you do not. That should be your only guide. There is no reason for any other guide than that. Why not simply trust your own human nature?

“ Not necessarily, my friend.”

Do not presume that I am interested in being your friend.

“An emotionally secure person may also want to demonstrate that an accusation was unfounded (perhaps as a caution to others?), because it is no trouble for them to do so.”

Why would you need to caution others? Surely they can see for themselves from your behaviour whether or not your post is a cry for help. Are you saying that they are too stupid to make such a determination based on the evidence before their own eyes? The fact that you are still whining about an event long after it happened is enough evidence in itself to deem it a cry for help. You have obviously not come to terms with the event and still have not found peace in regard to it.

“My intention .... If so, then I apologise.”

Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt. If you hit a nerve then why are you apologising? My nerves are my responsibility – not yours.

Dear phanto,

<<What makes you think I am avoiding an explanation? Where is the evidence to suggest avoidance?>>

The evidence can be seen in the contradiction I noted earlier. I am sorry if I did not make this clearer the last time.

<<Just because I do not give you what you want does not mean I cannot give you what you want.>>

Indubitably.

<<Do you want me to act unreasonably just to satisfy your desires?>>

No, I do not.

<<You have given no good reason why you need to see [how an objective interpretation of your post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help].>>

“Another possibility is that I am currently in the process of demonstrating that your claim was unfounded.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246715)

<<You have a conscience and that is all you need.>>

Intrapersonal reasoning would also be a useful skill.

<<There is no reason for any other guide than [conscience].>>

Indeed, there is. Intrapersonal reasoning is more objective than mere subjective feelings. People can feel guilt in instances where no guilt is warranted, and vice versa.

<<Why would you need to caution others?>>

I did not speak of needs.

<<Are you saying that they are too stupid to make such a determination based on the evidence before their own eyes?>>

“In no way [would it be] intended [as] a reflection on their intellectual capacities, but instead a means of ensuring clarity in the understanding that we all, as individuals, perceive things in different ways, irrespective of our intellectual capacities.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267#342775)

<<The fact that you are still whining about an event long after it happened is enough evidence in itself to deem it a cry for help.>>

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/whine

Unfortunately, this is a non sequitur which relies on multiple flawed, incomplete, and hasty assumptions that I noted earlier.

<<Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt.>>

“My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246715)

Philips:

“The evidence can be seen in the contradiction I noted earlier.”

No, you took my claim that it would be a waste of time as literally meaning minutes and seconds when I meant that it would be futile. Just because you interpret my phrase to suit yourself does not alter my meaning. It is part of your dishonest and evasive methodology.

“People can feel guilt in instances where no guilt is warranted, and vice versa.”

But we are not talking about ‘people’ we are talking about you as an individual. Why do you not trust your own feelings in this particular instance? Why do you not trust your own feelings of guilt or otherwise in response to my claim that you were crying for help?

“My intention was to convey the mood of the discussion as I perceived it, not to presume to know how you feel.”

You didn’t answer my question as to why you did not simply say how you felt rather than presume that a ‘mood’ existed. A mood requires more than one similar response.

Dear phanto,

I thank you for the clarification. A contradiction still remains, however, and it is a contradiction which still serves as evidence that your refusal to fulfil my request is based on an inability to do so, rather than a lack of motivation.

<<No, you took my claim that it would be a waste of time as literally meaning minutes and seconds when I meant that it would be futile.>>

If explaining to me how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help were indeed futile, then surely explaining to me that it would be futile would also be futile.

Do you see the new contradiction?

At this point, you might as well have explained it, which would at least demonstrate that your suspicions about me were correct, if nothing else. Instead, you have spent much time engaging in what, according to your beliefs about me, should be futile while appearing evasive in the process and achieving nothing.

<<Just because you interpret my phrase to suit yourself does not alter my meaning.>>

Indubitably. However, I would ask that in future you do not assume mischievous intent on my behalf without citing evidence. My initial interpretation was reasonable.

<<But we are not talking about ‘people’ we are talking about you as an individual.>>

Yes, and I am a person.

<<Why do you not trust your own feelings ...>>

I do. Neither my words nor my actions have suggested otherwise.

<<You didn’t answer my question as to why you did not simply say how you felt rather than presume that a ‘mood’ existed.>>

I am afraid that was not your question. Your question was:

“Why not say that you felt calm and enjoyment without presuming what I felt[?]” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7964#246717)

But to answer your new question: a mood always exists when two or more individuals communicate. I am not aware of any guidelines concerning discourse (formal or otherwise) which dictate that one must not comment on the mood, or must preference one's own feelings when determining which to comment on.

When a cat fight starts, your first instinct may be to yell, clap, or break out the water gun. But this could just make things worse, Sackman warns.

Instead, you should take a deep calming breath and insert an object like a large piece of cardboard between the cats, McMillan suggests. This creates a gentle but impenetrable barrier between the two felines. If the cats are locked together, pick one up by the scruff, which will force him to release the other cat.

Keep the cats separated for a while to let them cool down. “Every time you have a fight, the relationship gets worse,” Sackman says. “The longer the fights have been going on, the harder it is to correct the relationship.”