Thanks for reposting this, P6. It's a good story to chew on for a little while.

A couple of things. First, this little detail really struck me:

After he passes, he says "I get claustrophobic." Moves forward a couple of seats. Looks back and crosses the aisle.

The man reflexively moved toward the front of the bus. Maybe I shouldn't read anything about the man's psychology from that, but it really jumped out from your narrative.

The other thing: I know a guy who's an interface designer. He recently wrote a good article about panic. He gives several examples of how people fall back on their most familiar and comfortable behaviors--even when they know they're wrong--in panic situations.

Whatever set this man off put him into a panic state. Some stimulus (Was it the book?) put him in a state of mind that was outside of his "I-can-accurately-interpret-the-data" zone, so he replaced a more rational scheme for reading his immediate environment with a less rational, but more familiar one: the black guy scares me.

Your last sentence nails it down exactly right the way I read it. That was a fear reaction. The book was just a trigger that took the man out of his comfort zone. His substitute scheme for interpreting the world came from a whole different place.

Oh, and the "inner eyebrow" gave me a good laugh.

 Whatever set this man off put him into a panic state. Some stimulus (Was it the book?) put him in a state of mind that was outside of his "I-can-accurately-interpret-the-data" zone, so he replaced a more rational scheme for reading his immediate environment with a less rational, but more familiar one: the black guy scares me.

I figure the book was the trigger, yes. Big Black guy reading about advantages white folks have...sitting right next to me... and being friendly. Serious cognitive dissonance for a LOT of folks.

All white people have been told by some number of people they trust implicitly that Black people are a problem. It doesn't always stick, but...well, check this:

Whiteness, As I Know It

Posted by site admin @ 4:41 am

Edited September of 2005 for capitalization and minor clarification.

Two years ago, I took a class on Black American literature. I loved the class - the student presentation/discussion format, the reading, and the professor. The professor was a tiny little black man with a comical reputation of being dominated by his very successful and respected wife, apparently fueling his notions of the oppressed black manhood. He was a very quiet man with a good sense of humor, preferring to let the class members give their presentations without interruptions, occasionally interjecting points, facts, and further questions for discussion when necessary.

I remember the look on his face when one day a student dared to call him by his first name, instead of by his explicitly preferred address, “Professor S——-.” The student might as well have called him boy. The professor gave a thorough history of how white students have historically afforded less authority and respect to black people of authority, and from now on, he preferred to be addressed by his degree. The student was put in his place - and rightfully so. The lesson that I took from that moment was that even if offense was not intended, and even if the student didn’t understand the connotations of his actions, it did not excuse him from exhibiting traditional racist behavior. Good intentions do not matter if you nevertheless hurt or insult a person.

This semester was the semester of September 11th, racial tensions were running high inside and out of the class. Due to the presentation format, students gave short speeches and papers related to the writing every day. Suddenly, the topics strayed from the literary readings and began to focus on the class’s personal experiences of race and racism. The n-word began getting thrown around with surprising freedom (some students maintained that it pertained to the discussion although it made many of us uncomfortable), and one day a student admitted to having lots of friends in the KKK. “In fact,” he declared one day, “my boy scout troop used to camp on KKK camping ground every year. They were really nice people.” He then added that he did not consider himself racist.

My professor was floored. Everyone in the class sat staring with their mouths gaping open. Professor S. sputtered for a moment and dropped his pen. “How do you justify that?” he asked gently. He couldn’t say anything more. He, like the rest of us, was speechless.

“I don’t know,” the kid said. “It’s just the way it was.”

(Recently a LOT of people have been prowling around the Identity Blogging thread that I got me a Bloggies nomination two years ago...I think that's why Lauren edited it).

That's my emphasis, not hers. And there's considerably more to the post. 

All white people have been told by some number of people they trust implicitly that Black people are a problem.

Let me get one little quibble out of the way, because if I don't, somebody will: If you search long enough, you could probably find a white person who is free of this problem. (Maybe a kid who grew up in a mixed-race family?) In my book, though, the exceptions are few enough to make "all" the right word to use, so I'll use it too.

I think this is right. It certainly reflects my own upbringing. We (I mean white people) are all taught at some time or another that they are not like us and that's because something is wrong with them.

Short of traumatic brain injury, nothing ever erases that previous scheme for reading life's input. People of good conscience learn better ways to interpret the world around them because they work at it. But if a momentary panic upsets the scheme, the old familiar one is still hanging around waiting to be pressed into service.

People of good conscience learn better ways to interpret the world around them because they work at it.

...which is why I can work with people who mean well but do poorly.  I simply don't believe someone who constantly excuses racist behavior means well by me.

I just don't have that forgive-and-forget thing down

Meanwhile, I do understand the problem because I have it too...the dual soul syndrome that DuBois spoke of, that condition when the imperitives of other have equal or greater importance than one's own. When discrimination became illegal, suddenly white people had to be concerned about the values of people outside their in-group.

When Black folks go psychotic over race, this is one of the main reasons...the repression of self and denial of growth in the directions implied by one's original nature.

Just came back from reading the rest of the feministe post you linked. Whew! Most excellent. (But I still need to go back and get clear on "Whiteness" and "whiteness".)

And, dammit, now I've got two more blogs I have to read regularly: feministe and Cobb. Thanks alot, P6.

Back to the man on the bus:

In general, I think white people are more susceptible to events that trigger a panic reaction. It's not unusual for me to go a whole week without encountering a person I don't already know who isn't white. (Colorado is mighty white.) I don't run into much culturally ambiguous input, and that means my existing scheme for reading the world is sufficient, at least in an immediate sense. That leaves me with a narrow set of past experiences to draw from.

If I lived in a world where 80 percent of all the people I encountered were black (or Hispanic or Asian, for that matter), I'd have no choice but to become adept at reconciling differences in my scheme of understanding and the expectations of the people around me. It would be much less likely that some random event (like a man next to me on the bus reading a book with a provocative title) would upset the scheme. With a more refined scheme, that event would call for the "raised eyebrow" instead of panic.

Now I got it. This sentence did it for me:

Whiteness gives a person extra opportunities in the world without necessarily deserving them. Whiteness believes the access to those opportunities are in order.

I simply don't believe someone who constantly excuses racist behavior means well by me.

Might we agree that providing you an accurate description of white perspective, such that it can be inspected, would be a demonstration of meaning well?

I'm a bit perplexed that such a report could generate hostility.  I've contemplated what "making excuses" means, and in particular "constantly making excuses".  As with an active alcoholic whose family says "post traumatic stress disorder", while declining to demand change? As with a wife who blames herself for getting hit by her husband?

That's not what is going on here.  I'm laying all the cards out for everyone to see. I'm not suggesting that anyone, myself included, is beyond criticism.  I do this because I truly believe that progress is based on communication, and communication is based on accurate understanding of the facts of the matter. 

There's no doubt we're in the hard core. The stuff white people and black people who are friends can't discuss.  It's an opportunity.

I get it.  Black people experience racism as an expression of hostility.  I get it.  That's a problem for black people in many ways. I get it. Irrational white fear of black people limits economic opportunities for black people.  But if we're going to propose a solution to those, we have to start in that white mind with what's there, we have to connect.  A fearful white person isn't going to be cured by demanding a cessation of racist behavior, that doesn't connect, and thus isn't a solution.

DW, when there's a question, I'm open for discussion. When there is no question, I am not.

Seperately, I don't need a model of (the royal) your mind. I need a model of your behavior. One is not necessarily necessary to get the other.

("do you think we should look at you the same way?"  "you already do so I see no need to sweat that.")

But if you want to be mental, tell me what would motivate enough white folks to change to make a difference. Me, I'm about ready to sign the Racial Discrimination Licensing Act. (Check the library for  Faces at the Bottom of the Well by Derrick Bell).

Now I'm going out for my pizza and beer. 

Seperately, I don't need a model of (the royal) your mind. I need a model of your behavior. One is not necessarily necessary to get the other.

If you'd like to change behavior, it helps, a lot, to understand the mind.

Consider the simple relationship between white fear and incoming racism (which I understand far more clearly after your story and the subsequent discussion). Demanding a white person cease being fearful has zero chance of changing his behavior. Claiming he is being racist while experiencing fear also has zero chance of changing his behavior.  Fear, an instinctive emotion, seems inherently rational, and doesn't seem at all racism which is irrational.

So if we're to do something in the fear/racism story, we have to take on the racism not as racism, but as irrational fear. And we need to be taking on irrational fear, rather than racism, from both the white and black perspective. The gulf is not as broad, and their chances of reaching across are higher.  We can get the white person to think about whether the fear was rational a lot easier than we can get the white person to think about whether he was being a racist.

If you'd like to change behavior, it helps, a lot, to understand the mind.

If.

The subtitle of Faces At The Bottom Of The Well is The Permanence of Racism.

My position is, Black people need to stop behaving in ways designed to convince white people not to be racist because it will not work on racists and it's not needed for those who aren't.

We can get the white person to think about whether the fear was rational a lot easier than we can get the white person to think about whether he was being a racist.

You can. I can't because I'm the one he fears. That's why I lean on rational white folks to take up the cudgel if they're serious about addressing racism. 

Black people need to stop behaving in ways designed to convince white people not to be racist because it will not work on racists and it's not needed for those who aren't.

That is perfectly rational.

What would be irrational however would be a state of dispair, things being way bad but no way do do anything about it, no hope of improvement.

In accepting racism as permanent, one creates a tension between "and that's not so bad, we'll be fine" vs "and we're all doomed to a life of misery".

How do you address that tension, P6? 

The situation is completely hopeless..,

Whites unable to overcome racist psychopathology during the era of thermodynamic superabundance will categorically embrace their hatred as a psychologically useful means of rationalizing the pending tribal ultraviolence that they'll practice during the era of thermodynamic decline

In accepting racism as permanent, one creates a tension between "and that's not so bad, we'll be fine" vs "and we're all doomed to a life of misery".

How do you address that tension, P6?

By abandoning false dichotomies. Accepting racism as permanent allows one to react to it honestly. Our hiding our reactions (and I'm talking your typical negro, not the activist types) makes it a lot easier for folks to be in denial. It would force us to change our game, and hence the very ground of the competition.

And yes, it is a competition...it shouldn't be but that's what the mainstream insists on. We need to look at that, understand that the goal of a competition is to make the other guy lose.

It would make Black people recognize we are our only hope...and as well as we've done against active opposition while still trying to be nice it's obvious there a massive amount of hope there. And as we progress, white folks will come to recognize it is in their best interest to come to fair terms.

Or not. Either way, I'm confortable that we can work it out if we're not living in some dream world. 

Whites unable to overcome racist psychopathology during the era of thermodynamic superabundance will categorically embrace their hatred as a psychologically useful means of rationalizing the pending tribal ultraviolence that they'll practice

...which means they'll make the same mistake the folks in Little Rock made.

As long as the coming singularity doesn't kill us all outright, those who wield the control in the USofA recognize that kind of disruption as a threat to that control.  Not because they are being challenged directly but because control requires ordered systems.

Power, on the other hand, can deal with chaos as well as order.

At any rate, since it is a singularity, I can't say what's on the other side of it. But neither can they.

Centralized control is an artifact of superabundance...,

On the other side of the singularity, local schemes of orderlines begin to take on a decidedly feudal cast.

there are moments when I damn near quiver with antici SAY IT FRANKIE! pation...,

"Not because they are being challenged directly but because control requires ordered systems."

TRUE, TRUE AND TRUE AGAIN! THAT'S WHY I AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER AMERICANS HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY THESE DICKHEADS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT FDR AND HIS GANG DID WAS GIVE THIS SYSTEM THE STABILITY IT NEEDED TO SURVIVE AND MANAGE THE MACRO AFFAIRS OF AN ADVANCED INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETY. THESE FOOLS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE OR REALLY ACCEPT THAT STABILITY IS THE KEY TO THEIR CONTINUED DOMINANCE.

Centralized control is an artifact of superabundance...,

We're hierarchical. Even your feudal village has central control. And there's all manner of ways to negotiate a "soft landing" if the majority are willing to take orders.

Trick is, the singularity won't be purely economic. That's why I went to that bioethics lecture and will be going to the next three in the series as well.

Of all the folks around here, you are among the most aware of how changing the physical substrate changes everything. 

THESE FOOLS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE OR REALLY ACCEPT THAT STABILITY IS THE KEY TO THEIR CONTINUED DOMINANCE.

It's all psychodrama to them. Just as they believe consistency is superior to competence.

Accepting racism as permanent allows one to react to it honestly. Our hiding our reactions (and I'm talking your typical negro, not the activist types) makes it a lot easier for folks to be in denial. It would force us to change our game, and hence the very ground of the competition.

Can you contrast that to the thought of conservative blacks? Wouldn't this be something Shelby Steele might say to black people? Or Cobb? It sounds oriented toward personal success. Should I find a quote?

A quote where Black people should accept racism as permanent? I'd love to see that from a Black Conservative,

Or do you have somethng...incomplete in mind? Because if you do you'd be misleading people and I wouldn't like to see that at all.

"Wouldn't this be something Shelby Steele might say to black people? Or Cobb? It sounds oriented toward personal success. Should I find a quote?"

Two things to keep in mind here: (1) Shelby Steele does not regard racism as a permanent fixture of the American landscape because, as Glenn Loury pointed out, Steele believes strongly in the outcomes of racial assimilation. Steele's mother was white and the mother of his own children is white. It is extremely likely that Steele's children will not marry a black person. In a generation or two all outward physical signs of blackness in Steele's descendants will have disappeared. The overwhelming majority of black people in America are not going to intermarry with whites, Hispanics or Asians. We are not disappearing into the new American gene pool. And (2) the overwhelming majority of black people don't care what Steele and other black conservatives have to say about anything and if any of them began saying anything along the lines about accepting racism as permanent then blacks would start going in another direction, although an overwhelming majority of them believe that racism is indeed a permanent fixture of the American landscape.

Welcome back, PT.

A quote where Black people should accept racism as permanent? I'd love to see that from a Black Conservative,

I can't find a quick quote, I'll keep looking, but see if this doesn't match a black conservative view of racism.

"The worst of racism has been gone for 30 or 40 years, the kind of racism which actively blocked black advancement.  There remains plenty of racism, but it's the kind of thing an individual black person simply must overcome on the path to success. Life is indeed tougher for black people, but nowhere near unsurmountably so". 

In that kind of statement is an implication that subtle racism is permanent.  I'm predicting P6 will supply a somewhat different answer, but I'm willing to suggest that a speaker who asserts that racism is permanent is obligated to answer the question of how such acceptance is progressive.  Pointing out that it fosters a more competitive attitude goes a bit toward supplying such an answer, but it leaves out a lot of understanding which seems important.

see if this doesn't match a black conservative view of racism.

Your quote does, it just doesn't match my view.

it leaves out a lot of understanding which seems important.

Understanding of... 

PT, I just did a quick google on Shelby Steele.  It takes more time than I have now to do a good job, Steele has written a lot and a lot of people have written about Steele.

But in my mini-search, I found nothing which would support a claim that Steele advocates genetic browning as the primary or even a secondary solution to racial issues.  Steele's standout argument regarding AA isn't what we're discussing here, but I read in Steele's ideas a strong advocacy for the success of black folk as black folk, not brown.

Your quote does, it just doesn't match my view.

I didn't think it would, but it represents a view which simultaneously accepting of permanent racism and progressive.  I thought maybe it would help to have such a thing there to contrast your views against. 

When you say "progressive" you aren't talking about the political orientation. I get the feeling there's a problem along the lines of trying to use "experience" in connection with Black and white folks' variant uses of the word "racism" at the same time.

Ain't going there again. So I'm waiting to hear what the important missing understanding is.

When you say "progressive" you aren't talking about the political orientation.

Correct.  I'm talking about the opposite of despair and confinement.

I get the feeling there's a problem along the lines of trying to use "experience" in connection with Black and white folks' variant uses of the word "racism" at the same time.

I hope the day comes when you trust me, not to agree with you, but to disagree in a way which never, ever deliberately twists anything, and never hides issues behind unusual word usage. That I will never play dumb, nor seek to portray your views in a distorted way.  My aim is to understand; none of that could possible be helpful.

I don't understand what you object to regarding "experience", ok? I know I set you off, but it wasn't because I was trying to do anything tricky, I was attempting an interaction.  I'm left wondering if you're disagreeing with my wording (which I offer to change) or if you disagree with what I was trying to say.  My tentative conclusion is that many black people experience incoming racism as hostility, and believe they know what whites are experiencing on the outgoing side, namely a feeling of distain.  It pisses them off when someone seems to be trying to disguise distain via various explanations.

Well like I said, I ain't really going there.

Pointing out that it fosters a more competitive attitude goes a bit toward supplying such an answer, but it leaves out a lot of understanding which seems important.

I've said what I need is understanding of behavior, not motivation. Motivation can't be seen and can be denied. Is denied all the time, in fact. Behavior is real, reportable, documentable, verifiable. Et cetera.

What's missing? 

"But in my mini-search, I found nothing which would support a claim that Steele advocates genetic browning as the primary or even a secondary solution to racial issues."

I think you are deliberately being obtuse. My point, which I don't for a moment believe that you missed, was that Shelby Steele and his progeny don't have the same racial problems as me and mine.

I think you are deliberately being obtuse.

I'm disappointed that you dismiss Steele with "not a genuine black man"; I didn't really want to believe it.

"I'm disappointed that you dismiss Steele with "not a genuine black man"; I didn't really want to believe it."

You are still acting obtusely. I never accuse any black person of not being "genuine." The fact remains that if Steele's grandchildren (and maybe his children) don't look black then issues such as affirmative action, racial discrimination etc. are irrelevant to them.

I've said what I need is understanding of behavior, not motivation.

And that's consistent with accepting racism as permanent.

What's missing?

The crucial part of accepting the permanence of something negative. How should that affect the rest of the listener's life?  Advising accepting the permanence of something negative doesn't actually connect without that second part.  We need "(1)accept this, (2)because it will allow that, which we can see yields progress".   I'd like to understand how you fill that part in.

...and for perfectly legitimate reasons Steele's children and grandchildren may not even identify themselves as being black so the issues that they and their father and grandfather are facing with respect to America's racial problems are vastly different than what the vast overwhelming majority of African Americans will face.

Steele's fundamental thesis, the idea which attracts both attention and scorn, is that affirmative action cements racial inferiority notions in both blacks and whites.  I don't expect you to agree with that PT, I'm not sure I agree with it completely myself.  But to dismiss it on grounds that the DNA of the speaker and the speaker's family leaves him disqualified to hold such an idea, is to leave the idea standing tall.

One of Steele's interesting arguments is to ask whites if they would like AA for their children, if they don't think their children wouldn't suffer confidence wise if they were told they needed a special advantage in order to compete. 

"One of Steele's interesting arguments is to ask whites if they would like AA for their children, if they don't think their children wouldn't suffer confidence wise if they were told they needed a special advantage in order to compete."

Affirmative Action is not a special advantage. We live in country that has run a racial spoils system for more than 300 years counting precolonial and postcolonial periods and we see no signs that whites are afflicted with a massive and collective inferiority complex. I find it ludicrous that Steele and others seriously believe that black folks would suffer permanent pangs of inferiority as a result of three decades of affirmative action.

Steele's DNA or authenticity is not in play here. His understanding of the obstacles that black children who do not look like his children and most definitely will not look like his grandchildren face here in America is the issue. Whether you agree with me or not I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the point I am making.

Thanks for being patient.  I was writing this as you were writing that, because I concluded that I posted a bit hastily.  New posting: 

I'm working on our disconnect here PT.

1. Speaking as a black man to black people about racial issues.
2. Speaking as a white man to black people about racial issues.

Now I understand you're saying so long as I stay in category (2), you're not too concerned about what I say, because black people will correctly filter me. It requires no certificate of blackness.  Your problem is with a man who claims category (1) status, because you're concerned that black people won't correctly filter the message, and that a man might slip an idea in around the white filter by appearing black while being white?  A kind of fraud?

We need "(1)accept this, (2)because it will allow that, which we can see yields progress".   I'd like to understand how you fill that part in.

I'm going Tao instead of Zen tonight. I recently found a single copy of my favorite translation of Tao Te Ching, a translation I thought was out of print because I'd been looking for it unsuccessfully for so long.

But fatalism is acceptance of destiny
And to accept destiny is to face life with open eyes
Whereas not to accept destiny is to face death blindfolded.

He who is open-eyed is open-minded,
He who is open-minded is open-hearted,
He who is open-hearted is kingly,
He who is kingly is godly,
He who is godly is infinite,
He who is infinite is immune,
He who is immune is immortal.

I actually chucked three several lines, which is cool because it's a free-form interpretation rather than a direct translation anyway. 

No, I an not saying any of the above. I am saying that Steele's status as a black man is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that his perception, in my opinion, of the problems that my children and grandchildren will face is greatly clouded and distorted by the fact that his children and grandchildren will not face these problems because the color of their skin will carry little, if any, signs of Steele's late father. They will look more like Steele's mother and wife.

So would you say that I couldn't do even as well as "greatly clouded and distorted", and thus couldn't possibly have anything insightful to say about your children and grandchildren? 

I don't think you're saying that PT, for the same reason I don't think you'd be surprised to know that I believe you have plenty of insightful ideas about my children and grandchildren, including a few I haven't heard as yet.

I do believe you're allowing your your disgust with Steele to advance inferior arguments onto paper.  If Steele doesn't understand the problems of black children, surely that can be shown by providing superior arguments and showing where Steele is in conflict with such.

DW, I give up. I don't understand what you wrote and I can't figure out what it has to do with Shelby Steele.

If Steele can at best analyze the problems of black children in a greatly clouded and distorted way, would I, a white man, be able to do even that well?

DW, we have reached that point where you just don't get it and you don't get because you are not black. Nothing that you have written in response to my reference to Loury's take on Shelby Steele is on point. I'm sorry, man, but you just don't understand and there is no way, given your politics and acculturation, for you to understand. I should have known better than to respond to you.

I should have known better than to respond to you.

Don't give up, PT.

Sometimes we communicate.  That's good. Sometimes we dont, despite trying.  Over time, those don't matter.  

I realize that not being black makes understanding a black perspective difficult.  I hope, and believe it doesn't make it impossible. 

If you have suggestions, they're welcome.

I think I've learned not to try too many subjects at once.  Steele is his own topic.  AA also.  Neither were the original topic here, and both served as a diversion rather than anything useful. 

 Perhaps I can explain a bit more gently. Perhaps not...

Your problem is with a man who claims category (1) status, because you're concerned that black people won't correctly filter the message, and that a man might slip an idea in around the white filter by appearing black while being white?  A kind of fraud?

There is no white filter. There's a bullshit filter. I can give you links to white folks who "get it." Have done so, in fact in this very thread, and if Lauren and our Quaker friend aren't enough you can check in with Jay Bullock,Atrios, Digby, Jesus' General (though I'd have to show you a comment or two that was left here...), Ampersand, Kevin Hayden, James MacLean, The Blogger Currently Known as Azael, Dru Blood, even the excessively centrist Kevin Drum...and that's just off the top of my head.

What is stopping you is your attempt to fit our experience into your framework. Your life has, apparently, not provided you with the necessary concepts. Frankly if you can't even discuss this with your friends you MUST realize it will be even more difficult with people who do now know you at all.

Steele's fundamental thesis, the idea which attracts both attention and scorn, is that affirmative action cements racial inferiority notions in both blacks and whites.

This invokes the bullshit filter because people who have benefitted from the existence of various affirmative action programs (which includes the likes o' Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas) have no sense of self-inferiority.

Well, maybe those two.

And the white people that claim it causes them to think Black people inferior are confusing cause and self-righteous justification of existing opinion. At worst they are racist, at best they seek advantage for their own (a subtly different thing).

Meanwhile, selling out Black people has always been a lucrative career option for Black people. And S.S. defends what to us is an obvious falsehood. Even his own brother knows it's wrong.

Your life has, apparently, not provided you with the necessary concepts. Frankly if you can't even discuss this with your friends you MUST realize it will be even more difficult with people who do now know you at all.

Different equation.  I'm willing to take a chance that you will permanently reject me.  You're willing to take a chance that I will permanently reject you.  Neither one of those is true with my friends.

That doesn't mean that your observation is incorrect. The fact that we lack significant personal attachment sometimes implies other things with negative effect.

Lack of trust is a major inhibitor. 

What is stopping you is your attempt to fit our experience into your framework.

Racism might be symmetric only in a syntactic sense, but this one is very clearly symmetric, and is what ends up defining that zone of misunderstanding.  I'm not disagreeing. I am hoping to chip away.

I do appreciate however P6 when you respond as you have here...a hint that the game isn't over even following a less than totally successful thread.