Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 9566864" data-attributes="member: 7036985">Yes, I agree with you, it's not the only way and escalating to coming to blows is totally a an acceptable development. My example had an unnamed implication that we would stay on the same arena of conflict we started with, but we clearly need not. I think the reason I did not include it is because I definitely know that you or the other posters would not push me back on resolving how THAT ONE goes with dice. Or are we gonna keep knifing each other forever?You think I'm saying that we cannot proceed with neither having conceded the verbal argument. That is, categorically, not what I mean. I'm saying that we need to resolve the conflict, in whichever way it can be resolved, before we proceed. Resolve the conflict might also be: we both let it go for now. But that kind of means the Sir James is the one who conceded. After all, he is the one who summoned the squire and the one with the hierarchy. If we can't agree and each one walks their way, Sir James kinda blew his chance.Sure! And I invite all of these as healthy productive alternatives. Why would you think I wouldn't?</blockquote>