Example of a failure to communicate? A growing problem?

Hello valued members of ATS. What is your take on a conversation that goes as follows: Do you believe that there is a failure to communicate effectively, and what do you think the cause is for the failure to communicate? Please read this example of a conversation, and express your views accordingly. i thank you in advance for your contributions.

Player #1:
I don't want evidence, just an answer:

1)What and when is the end goal of the global alien conspiracy?
2)Is it managed on this planet or elsewhere?
3)What physical attributes do the aliens have?

Player #2:
1) Is there a global conspiracy?
Yes.

2) How has it come about?
Cause and effect, and effect and cause.

3) Why does it exist?
Neccessity.

Player #1:
What and when is the end goal of the global alien conspiracy?

Player #2:
Do all humans have the same agenda? Yet, all alien conspiracies must have the same end goal. I assume this is your stance, considering how the question was worded.

Player #1:
2)Is it managed on this planet or elsewhere?

Player #2:
I take it i can only pick one answer. one possibility offered to me by you is "this planet", and the other possibility offered to me by you is "elsewhere". My response to this question is: You have failed to ask the right question, or even offer an appropriate response.

Player #1:
3)What physical attributes do the aliens have?

Player #2:
Aliens have all physical attributes that exist.

Player #1:
You know as well as I do that you have attempted to totally dodge the questions. This is not a game of politics, answer the questions:

1)What is the aim of the global conspriacy and on what date will it be complete.

2)Where are the aliens.

3)In what form are the aliens.

You are trying to go off point and it is simply not going to happen. Answer my questions please.

Player #2:
What question have i avoided?

Player #1:
What is your proof of their being an global alien conpsiracy?

Player #2:
Language. Human behavior. History. Truth.

Player #1:
What is their main objective?

Player #2:
Why am i expected to speak for the lifeforms of every other race on every other planet? Where is it i claim to have such authority to do so? Not even GOD (if you believe in God) claims to have that authority. hence the term "Free Will". I don't claim to speak for all life everywhere. But i strongly suspect objectives differ. Individual races do not always have the same objectives. This should be self-evident in humans, since humans don't seem to agree on earth's objectives. Yet, you request a human to define the objectives for every other race throughout all creation, when people can't efficiently agree upon what earth's objectives are. Their objectives are more than likely dependant upon what it is they percieve they need. Their needs are dependant upon what their truth is. Truth is probably their first objective. Communication and the quest for "truth compliance" probably tops the list as well.

Player #1:
What do they look like?

Player #2:
Exactly what people have been saying. Life does not look the same on this planet, so why should i attempt to generalize what "they" look like? Humans don't even know how diverse life is on earth yet. This is like asking me what earthlings look like. If i were to discribe an octopuss or sea urchant, would i be wrong in my description? I'm not dodging the question. I'm saying that the question is under-developed.

Player #1:
You have still failed in anyway whatsoever to define.
1)A date and purpose of the global alien conspiracy.
2)What an alien looks like.

Everyone around here can see you have attempted numerous times to avoid answering questions proposed to you if they read the posts. I have concluded that you cannot answer the questions and thank you for your time.

Player #2:
No, i have not failed. You are mistaken.
"1)A date and purpose of the global alien conspiracy."
The only answer you are currently willing to accept is a specific date and you are also only willing to accept that there is only one agenda. Any reply to the contrary is not accepted "in anyway whatsoever" by you as a sufficient response. It is apparent that unless the answer conforms to your expectations, then the answer is not sufficient for you. Unless i can offer one date, and one conspiracy, you are consistantly unwilling to accept my reply to this inquiry. MY RESPONSE HAS BEEN FOR OVER A YEAR ON THIS SIGHT THAT NO ONE PERSON NOR ONE ORGANIZATION HAS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. The date is determined by humanity's intentions. Humanity's intentions are reflective of their actions and behaviors. So, in effect it is you who also determines the date, and it is you who are part of the conspiracy. So, what is your agenda? Answer this question, and perhaps we will know more about a proposed "global alien conspiracy". If this reply fails to meet your expectations for a "definition" you are willing to accept, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your expectations.
"2)What an alien looks like."
Using earth as a model we can expect to find that all life throughout the universe also has absolutley no diversity whatsoever. (note sarcasm please) All aliens must conform to one definition of what they look like. Any other response will be catagorized as "a falure" to provide a suitable response. So i hereby concede that i have failed to answer your question, since the response would not conform to your expectations.

Player #1:
1)A date and purpose of the global alien conspiracy?
2)What an alien looks like?

Player #2:
1) No one person knows the date. there are organizations with differing agendas.
2) Life throughout all existance is even more diverse than the life on earth.

Player #1:
Well done, you have dodged the questions yet again. Everyone can see this. You don't seem to have answers, so don't pretend to.

Player #2:
"Well done, you have dodged the questions yet again."
How so?

"Everyone can see this."
You speak for everyone?

Player #1:
Please answer the questions.

Player #2:
What questions have i not supplied a reply for?

I am not introducing this thread with the intentions to belittle "Player #1" or "Player #2".

My intentions for introducing this thread is to ask for constructive criticism as to the reason/cause for miscommunication.

From your personal observations, what problems present themselves concerning the perspectives, or the approaches used by both "Player #1" & "Player #2" which detiorated the conversation, and appears to make the ATS experience non-enjoyable or progressive in nature?

I thank you in advance for your contributions, and your "take" on the conversation.

AND .... Happy holiday season to all,
john


[edit on 22-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

[opinion]
Frankly, I thought player #2 was intentionally acting as obtuse, evasive, and aggravating as possible, while attempting to come off as somehow more in-the-know and mystical than player #1. Since many of us who follow these threads know exactly who is who here, you appear to be aggrieved in some way and looking for validation.
[/opinion]

Mmm

Il give some props to player two.

You see, any one with a firm understanding of the English language knows that to use certain words that otherwise would have no purpose in a typical frank conversation can be used to appear far more advanced or knowing then they really are. One could, say, manipulate to the wording of there response, in this case, and became vauge, at best, and seemingly as the poster above said, more knowing. When in all actuallity the second poster does not actually have any information what so ever. The evidence is clear, quite frankly, because if one where to know the answer to a question that they willingly sat down and intended upon answering, they would not use their words in a way to cause the conversation to begin and endless circle. The second poster played a mind game with the first poster, that is all, for you to think that he or she actually had any information that you your self are not privy to then you are the one to blame for falling into an obvious trap of words.

Well I would say player 2 did answer the questions, it seemed very much like an interrogation from player 1, I got the feeling player 1 was just being persistent to try and extract more information from player 2.

I'd like to say that both you and the previous poster are right, as far as i am concerned. I do thank you both for your time and your thoughts on this subject.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The evidence is clear, quite frankly, because if one where to know the answer to a question that they willingly sat down and intended upon answering, they would not use their words in a way to cause the conversation to begin and endless circle.

I like this point a lot:
"they would not use their words in a way to cause the conversation to begin and endless circle."

I can see how it could be seen that this is what Player #2 was doing. However, i think the endless circle of a conversation is the product of Player #1.

Far before Player #2 entered the conversation it was stated:

Player #1:
".... Due to the FACT that no evidence exists."

So, in Player #2's perspective Player #1 has already accepted as FACT that no evidence exists, yet demands evidence which he already sees as a FACT it does not exist.

Perhaps the same logic can be applied to this conversation, showing the same effect:

Bob: "There is a mountain over there"

Fred: "It is a fact that there is no evidence that that mountain exists."

Bob: "But, i can see it."

Fred: "Sorry, it is still a FACT that there is no evidence to support your claim that there is a mountain there."

Bob: "But, i can touch it."

Fred: "You have failed to define why that mountain is there, and when it will no longer be there, nor have you explained sufficiently why that mountain is there! You are just avoiding the subject, and everyone knows it."



[edit on 22-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by MrPenny
[opinion]
Frankly, I thought player #2 was intentionally acting as obtuse, evasive, and aggravating as possible

I agree. i wonder if Player #2 had a reason for doing it?

, while attempting to come off as somehow more in-the-know and mystical than player #1.

Again, i must agree with you. I wonder if Player #2 has any justification for acting in such a manner.

Thanks for you input on this subject. I think your observations are on the mark.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
i wonder if Player #2 had a reason for doing it?[...]I wonder if Player #2 has any justification for acting in such a manner.

See, that's a tremendous breakdown in communication. The utter transparency of those comments, being that you are player #2, indicates that you are either playing games or talking to yourself, out loud, on a forum. You're not communicating when your words and comments have a meaning that is only clear to yourself.

Spit.....it......out.

I would like to add I find player one annoyingly arrogant. I don’t think player 2 is playing mind games or with words, I think player 2 is quite write in the way he answers. Player 1 fails or appears not to understand the answers from player 2.

I recognise this conversation, where did you get it Esoteric Teacher?

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
i wonder if Player #2 had a reason for doing it?[...]I wonder if Player #2 has any justification for acting in such a manner.

See, that's a tremendous breakdown in communication.

There are 3 parts to communication.

1) the sender
2) the reciever
3) the message / medium

Player #1 acting as sender:
"It is FACT that no evidence exists. So, Either supply the evidence, or you are being evasive because you have no evidence. Again, i know it is a FACT that no evidence exists.

Player #2's thoughts .... "hmm. I think Player #1 is not willing or capable of being a reciever when the message is evidence. Why can't Player #1 recieve evidence? Because Player #1 already has accepted as FACT that there is no evidence, and they know it. Without confusing Player #1's "opinion" that it is a FACT no evidence exists, how can i provide evidence?"

If someone accepts as a FACT that the sky is blue, how can i change their mind without changing their mind?

.... indicates that you are either playing games or talking to yourself, out loud, on a forum.

there are only two possibilities:
1) i'm playing games
2) talking outloud to myself

You're not communicating when your words and comments have a meaning that is only clear to yourself.

Perhaps it would be more clear to others if there were more than these two negative possibilities:

i'm playing games or talking outloud to myself.

Seems like i'm talking to myself then. Must be. Few are listening. I know it can't be the other reason. Because i am not playing games.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
1) the sender
2) the reciever
3) the message / medium

Yeah, thanks, I'm pretty sure I recall that.

Number 3 in this format is most important. The only medium we have to get our point across is plain text in this little grey box. (or is it gray?) Of course we have those stupid smileys over there ---->, but I avoid those like a virus. So, since the medium is so limited, the message becomes much more critical. And, if I were to grade your efforts, you would be getting a C-. Your message is cryptic, has meaning only to you, and do I detect a note of annoyance?

Try a rough draft in Notepad maybe, re-read it, punch it up a little, and try again.

Cheers!

Honestly, meaning no disrespect, Esoteric Teacher, it was irritating enough to read through in the original thread.

I thought then, and still do, that "player #1" had only one point to make, started three threads about it in two days, and that all of our time was wasted attempting to engage him in meaningful debate. Most notably, yours.

I don't think, although I understood your logic, your answers to him were anywhere near as helpful as they were endless and masturbatory. They certainly didn't merit yet another thread about them, although these ten minutes were mine to waste and I accept responsibility for that.

Let's let it go! And happy holidays.

"What we got here, is ... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you men."

- Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke

I think that sums it up pretty well! You see, if we have us a failure to communicate, it must be the way he wants it. I don't like it any more than the rest of you..........


[edit on 23-12-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

This scenario,at least from what I read of it, is a perfect example of a conflict between expectation and result. What I mean is that the questioner, Player # 1, expected certain answers, he got something completely different than what his expectations were.

The ability to communicate is only as efficient as the mental capacities of the two individuals communicating. For example, you cannot expect a laymen to be satisfied with any answer a particle physicist to give him/her. One is on a whole different intellectual plane than the other is. So, naturally to the layman, any answer that the physicist gives him is going to seem to be either a circumventing of the issue, or obfuscation.

Play# 1 is wanting for a straight foward answer to rather complex questions. Player #2 is giving complex answers to complex questions which is out of the realm of Player #1's frame of reference. You see, that's where most communication problems come in, differing frames of reference.

I have opened a new thread concerning debating tactics, and i believe will be a good tool for all ATS members.

I think this thread certainly helped guide me towards wanting to be a better communicator. And, through some research i learned a few things. If you feel your personal approach at communicating, trying to get your points across, and debating could use a little "tweaking", please click on the link in my signature.

I think reviewing the information could benefit you, and i believe it has benefitted me.

thanks,
john

The main thing is the "facts" that people are trying to debate. The UFO and Alien thing has the same thing in common with the NWO thing.

If nothing happens that can be inserted into a theory, for a while, or at all, people will merely make things up, because they need momentum in the arguments. Then you have hundreds of arguments about things people have made up to fill the space between something interesting. Then you have what you see today, an exponential argument about nothing with ever increasing embellishments, and occasional facts lost in the mire of BS.

Player number 2 is telling the truth and player number 1 refuses to acknowledge it because player number one must first be introduced to the mechanics of Existence. Player#1 is expecting a direct and precise answer on dates, whereas player#2 has allready described, in truth, the possible outcome. Possible is underlined because, as it is stated, it is Humanity's will to accept that will ultimately bring about disclosure and contact; when player#1 accepts what player#2 says as truth, contact occurs and communication flourishes