Monday, August 2, 2010 in, what is?

ok, here's a question:
Why would I affirm a request to a meeting if it is clear that the requestor has no thing to gain from my presence: no transaction of information or goods, no invitation to travel, no advancement, no performance or entertainment, no fodder to work with, no springboard of an idea that could be acknowledged in public? Hmm perhaps I consider myself too much again.

On the other hand why would I affirm a request to a meeting if what I say is met with a counter-statement or snark, where I feel the need to either apologize or affirm myself in an assertive manner in response to what is stated to me?

Ok this is not one question but two, neither which is appealing or desired.

Go figure.


Bogie said...

Because you're accommodating and would rather say yes than no? Some times a "no" can be liberating for both parties. But of course that's only true if you're *not* talking about me. ;)

jim said...

Sounds like you assume a great deal about the person and the meeting. If your assumptions are founded, it seems like a relationship that should be clearly terminated, rather than passively avoided. So that would be a good way to respond to the request. But then.. we all know what happens when we assume things... You could be surprised and learn something, perhaps even about yourself?

Post a Comment