(Here is the context of this discussion)
PO, Instead of me complaining at the end of a relationship/friendship, after they finally get to know how I prefer to be treated and they then realise that I was not suited to them as a friend or possible partner,
I propose that I put my preferences, of how I would like to be treated, upfront.
This means making my implicit demands for relating more explicit.
If anything it could save a lot of time and heart ache and who knows, I may have discovered/recovered a way to find my soul mate. Here are my preferences or explicit demands and I will be practicing using them in this discussion.
The rules of engagement that I prefer to interact with are, 6 words/concepts beginning with A. I would prefer that someone speaks to me with Adjustable, Accountable and ultimately Acceptable language.
That if/when someone fails to achieve this with me, I will try notify them using Appreciation, Acknowledgment and Apology (speech in defense).
*Please note: Any members that participate in this discussion should be aware that although I am not expecting, demanding, or imposing this framework upon them, I reserve the right to practice this framework in any posts and when someone uses what I consider non-adjustable, non-accountable or unacceptable language on me, I will try inform them using appreciation, acknowledgment and apology.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you and if you do not wish to participate I will understand.
Thanks Kim for the contribution it really has allowed me to see more clearly why it was so important for me at the time, and a chance to explain it now.
As I mentioned when you rephrased your question willingly to "propose" as opposed to imposed, you can speak with my brother.
KIM "OK, so what's the longest you have been able to propose 3A logic during human interactivity in the past? How's that?"
and my reply then as it is now is the same ask my brother Steve who is now a member.
DES "I will ask my brother Steve to get back to you on this as we have been working on this for some 20 years now. I use him as the sounding board and test subject."
So I did answer it.
I think your question was rhetorical and because of the importance of semantics here,
once a framework is agreement to, "we" impose it not just me.
So I don't agree with you that there is a "trivial difference between proposing and imposing" or that it can be "overlooked".
When "we" impose something on each other, I think there is a huge difference than one person imposing an idea or concept on another.
For example Franis's concept that objecting to answer a question "doesn't work because it doesn't enhance communication" was never agreed to by me and so by saying I "should know better!" is imposing it on me, I think.
So to me, this difference between proposing and imposing is the difference between chalk and cheese. But due to all of our participation it is made much more apparent to me anyway, so thanks again.
Well Kim if you had of used "I think.." at least you would not end up falsely accusing me that I had not answered your question when I had.
A false thought might be easier to own than a false fact.
It might allow you to simply say "oops, sorry Des I thought wrong."
and a bit less humiliating than "oops I was wrong".
Now, because you did not preface your statement it looks like you will simply gloss over it as though it was not mentioned but it is plain for all to see.