JM NEPOMUCENO, 1 Sept. 09

Emma,


It is so simplistic to draw the conclusion that it is just a mere case of being "positive" or "negative", as you put it.


I would like to believe that you have enough maturity to deal with this direct feedback. The way you used "positive" or "negative" is directly related to your proposed topic. Another way of re-phrasing your "positive" or "negative":


Anyone who agrees with you about the topic you proposed is "positive".

Anyone who disagrees with you about the topic you proposed is "negative".


I can understand that since the topic you proposed is your "baby", you would want the discussion you are proposing to continue. And there is no one who can stop anyone else who will agree with you and pursue discussion of the topic that you proposed. And so, you can continue to pitch for your "baby" without having to get into any other discussion.


I reviewed the thread up to your last rejoinder, highlighted below, which I am now responding to. There were at least three who agreed with you to discuss the topic that you proposed. Those were: Bob Gabuna, Bart Bartolome, and Doc Nelson. For sure, there will be more among the other active readers of exchanges in the forum/archive, who may become interested and "agree with you" to pursue discussion of the topic that you proposed.


Your posting prompted me to review once more the summary of historical highlights from 1521 up to 31 August 2009 that I have collated, reviewed for accuracy in reporting / recording, searched for corroboration or contradictory documentation, evaluated the validity of the assertion / contention, and automatically updated with the most recent developments as they occur every calendar month.


Then, I applied the "rule" / guideline that you cited as follows:

The only rule I can think of is that one must give only one answer and then explain how that can be operationalized. How do we unite the Filipino people? Where can we unite? Who will unite us? What shall we unite on?




In order to avoid "disruption" of the flow that you wanted to pursue about "unity", I decided to trigger a new thread, that is linked with the old thread, but which can be pursued as a distinct and separate thread.


That is how the two (2) threads evolved.


Now, each member can choose as to which thread to get involved with. That is the proper perspective at this point.


In short, you are not in any way "forced" to even read further exchanges, much less post any rejoinder in this distinct and separate thread.


That is a basic rule for all members of any e-group in deciding to join in the exchanges in a forum, that is really more an archive of exchanges PER topic / thread. In case there is any issue about it, then we will have to ask the Forum Moderator to resolve it. But from where I am looking, anyone can even choose not to read e-mail notices that involve the two (2) threads at all.


Keep in mind that you posted your rejoinder in the NEW thread with a topic that will NOT involve your preferred topic.


So take it easy in using "labels" inappropriately, like "positive" or "negative" in the wrong context, i.e., limited to whether one agrees or not with you.


I wish you the best in pursuing the discussion of the topic that you proposed. And you do NOT really have to even read anything from further exchanges in this NEW thread.


Cheers!



JM

==