Tavia wrote:

Betty and Annie:

...

...

(Gawd, I hope at least some of that makes sense. It's *really* difficult to put this stuff into words.)

I think you did great, Betty. I also think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I agree, though I'd posit that some people can cheerfully function using either approach and can be interested in the results of discussions using either approach.

Oh, absolutely. I can, at least to some extent or another.

And Annie:

...

...the conflict(s) are coming in (imo) when people who look at it via Approach #1 continue to insist that folks who prefer Approach #2 comply with *their* methods. Although I don't mind being asked to participate in Approach #1, if my response is "I'm not interested" I don't expect to be belittled, told I'm copping out, told I don't have "proof" and various and sundry other insulting things.

It seems that way to me, too. But I'd like to add, also, that the problem *does* seem to have worked both ways. Approach #1 people seem to be seeing the Approach #2 people as putting some statement forward *in an Approach #1 manner* and then trying to back away from it in a manner that's unacceptable under Approach #1. And if that's what you think your conversational partner is doing, frustration is understandable.

Unfotunately, it's not just B7 in which multiple interpretations are possible, but in mailing list discussions, authorial intent *is* vital...

Tolerance seems to be a useful word here.

Amen to that.