Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: BEING RESPONSIBLE Message-ID: <1674@hao.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 19:09:48 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.1674 Posted: Mon Aug 5 19:09:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 04:22:43 EDT References: <2471@ut-sally.UUCP> <1660@hao.UUCP> <891@oddjob.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 20 > There's no need to argue about whether a person can exercise > complete control over their emotions. An experiment would serve. You are right, there is no need to argue that point. That isn't the point that is being argued, either, although lots of postings from those who want to be emotional "victims" seem to say so. *I* never said anything about complete control, nor did anyone who "agrees" with me in this discussion. What we *did* talk about was choice. Complete control would mean that someone never chooses to feel bad. I didn't say that. In some situations, choosing to feel bad may be appropriate for the person in question. But nevertheless it *is* a choice to react that way. It isn't a "bad" choice, it's just a choice. Knowing that it is a choice, you can also choose to get off that emotional track after a while instead of wallowing in it for ages and ages as I see so many people doing unnecessarily. Well, obviously I have chosen to feel a little annoyed at Matt putting words into my mouth (or should I say "our mouths" since there seem to be lots of people saying pretty much the same thing on both sides of this discussion), but now I can choose to post this and get off of that. (1/2 :-) --Greg