>>I have received few extremely unpleasant messages, including private ones, and I have to stop communicating with certain people here. It will obviously create some awkward situations, so I think that my fellow UTers should be aware of this.
>>If someone do not count him/herself as 'my fellow UTer', or feel offended by this familiarity, there is no need to jump in and tell it.
>
>Ed,
>
>I've been in a few unpleasant threads myself over the years. Perhaps a few observations will help to establish a sort of "common ground" that will help....
>
>Many I have deliberately caused myself so I am certainly not without fault. (Had to say that or get trounced! *LOL*)
>
>Some because I wanted others to come to my way of thinking and others (earlier on) because I felt attacked unjustifiably and totally misrepresented by responses.
>
>One of the problems with electronic communications is that, for the most part, it is entirely impossible to always correctly determine the intent and emotional state of the others we communicate with. As such, and at least in the FoxPro community at large, the tendency has been to presume that the sender's intentions are honerable. On the other hand, in the community there has been a concerted effort to make sure that when someone seems to be responding to perceived intentions to point this out, in addition to answering their technical questions. This "pointing out" business, if not done too quickly can work in many, if not most cases simply because most of us enjoy our craft more than being "right in our own eyes". People need feedback when their posts are coming across improperly. This is not a personal attack in most cases. Goodness knows I need all the halp I can get!
>
>There have been precious few (I can't think of any actually) individuals that I avoid because of incompatibilities. I figure if there are communications problems that I'm the one who has the responsibility to change because I'm the one in my mind who has noticed. I don't have a clue as to what others may or may not read into a message. As such, if I think I've been misunderstood or have somehow gotten crosswise with someone I try all the harder to make it right. I'm not always successful.
>
>It seems to me that the "trick" to creating and maintaining effective communications is to do everything in one's powers to avoid answering a post when, as I would put it, in the flush of emotion. This is based upon the notion, principle or rule that without the benefit of an apriori personal relationship, the benefit of the incredibly complex nuances of non-visual communication signals or the various cultural problem with idioms and figures of speech (even between states and localities let alone countries, religions and so forth) that it is just plain tough to do. We all need to work extra hard on this and pointing this out needs to be constantly done to remind ourselves.
>
>How people respond to messages really is their own business but the "rule" I'd suggest we all follow is the above. That is, everyone else starts with a clean slate until they write on it.
>
>Now, that deals with the emotions. The very same response I'd suggest for the factual or "hard science" stuff. I have no clue as to what anyone else's technical abilities are -other than- those I know personally, either by their writings or themselves. But, my presumptions are always going to be that the "other guy" is an equal or better. Perhaps not in the same area but somewhere that other individual knows something I do not. That they are willing to spend their time and energy helping me to learn what they know is, for me, very humbling. Who am I that they should be so kind to me? My natural emotional response is to try and do the same and follow their example.
>
>I have seen this break down almost in every case where one of two things occur:
>
>One is where one individual feels misunderstood. That is, they somehow feel emotionally "victimized" by someone else. This feeling can only come from the notion that the intentions of the other person are somehow impure. The problem, of course, is that we really have little or no way of knowing what these intentions truly are.
>
>Secondly is where someone feels as though their technical prowess is the means for getting acceptance from others. It is not. They are accepted as is and there is absolutely no need to use one's technical abilities to somehow gain respectability. It's already there.
>
>So, I am truly sorry to see that you have felt misunderstood by others in some recent threads. I can assure you that from where I sit no one has it out for you nor do I think that you have it out for anyone else. I honestly think that people don't always communicate as well with others as they might. It's a human condition kind of thing. *s*
>
>I don't really know you personally, as I don't know some of the others here such as John Petersen. Jim I know personally and I think the woprld of him for some very personal reasons. He helped me when I needed it the most but for goodness sakes don't tell him. I don't want him getting too taken with himself. (gd&rvvvffJB)
>
>I'd bet though that we could sit down and have a great time, all of us.
>
>No one here is a victim. We are all responsible for our own emotional state and that really is no one else's business.
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>DD

Actually, your initial assumptions were not correct. I can suggest few more correct ones:
1) This was not accidental that Mr. Petersen started to jump on my answers.
2) I did not feel that I was misunderstood. To the contrary of this, I'm pretty much sure that I was understood.
3) I was not led by emotions.
4) I truly believe that you're harbor nothing bad for me (sorry if I made some grammar error here) :-), but it would be totally naive if I would expect it from some other person.