XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:53:01 AM MST, "Marian" wrote   
   <10i1f1u$sfq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:   
      
   >   
   > Alan Browne,   
   >   
   > You returning gives us all the most promise of uplifting the content level   
   > of this ng.   
   >   
   > I respect you more than most of the group I associated you with, but even   
   > if I did not respect your knowledge (e.g., you at least read Apple's White   
   > Papers as you quote them often), I would respond to you as you respond to   
   > me.   
   >   
   > We can agree or disagree on assessments of fact.   
   > But if you brazenly knowingly deny facts, that's not a mark of respect.   
   >   
   > Nor would it be a mark of respect if I were to knowingly deny facts.   
   >   
   > Hence, I want you to be acutely aware, that if you remain respectful of me,   
   > I will remain respectful of you.   
   >   
   > If ever I'm NOT respectful of you moving from today forward in this   
   > newsgroup, it will be YOU who threw the first stone.   
   >   
   > Respect me. I'll respect you.   
   > Act like an adult. I'll treat you as an adult.   
   >   
   > Deal?   
      
   The author comes across as highly concerned with status, respect, and control   
   of social norms. Although the tone is outwardly polite, the message functions   
   more as a conditional contract than a genuine olive branch: respect is offered   
   only in exchange for compliance, and disagreement is implicitly framed as   
   denial of facts or immaturity. The writer positions themselves as an authority   
   on what counts as factual, respectful, and adult behavior, subtly placing   
   themselves above the recipient while claiming mutuality.   
      
   Psychologically, this suggests defensiveness and sensitivity to perceived   
   disrespect, paired with a need to preemptively assign blame if future conflict   
   occurs. The repeated emphasis on “facts,” “respect,” and “adult   
   behavior”   
   indicates prior grievance and a low tolerance for ambiguity or good-faith   
   disagreement. Overall, it reads less as reconciliation and more as an attempt   
   to reassert control and set terms for engagement.   
      
   https://chatgpt.com/share/69447fe8-c8b8-800c-a75b-ba001841a74c   
      
   I agree with this assessment.   
      
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)