Predisposition pertaining to the nature of replies

Post Reply New Topic

whatever. the topic was that predisposition was the nature of (all) replies, and i thought "how narrow is that assertion ?", and i posted how not all my replies are about predisposition.

i do not bother to read peoples opinions about it because i am not really interested.
i just say what i think about the topic title because i am not interested in being drowned in the shambolic details of what other people post.

RSVP topic

It is to be remembered that responding is a voluntary act, but I needed a title, and RSVP seemed close enough.

I do read every word of a post, though I may reread other posters and go back and forth in the topic to get the gist of the thread. Often posts are complicated and the topic morphs and tangentalizes. I will reply to the poster above me for at least two reasons: if the poster has replied to a post I made, or it is something interesting. But I always check with the OP before posting anything, in order to appreciate the thread.

When I read the work of another, I do have a bias. Everyone does. To be aware of this bias is the way to go in oder to fathom what the other is saying, even if the other work is, well, awful. But I learn something, even from the racist drivel that sometimes pops up here, in that racism is alive and sick and needs to be addressed.

i regard their avatar for a moment, then i read the first and last sentence of their post, and then i spew some partially digested word salad onto the thread.