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