> > What I heard you saying was that you felt there was the possibility of real human communication with this technique. Is that right?
>
> Not precisely. I meant that while I feel like 10der does about being the subject of technique (which she described better than I did), that there were ways that technique can be supported and bolstered by genuine communication.
>
> It's in the more natural communication that I feel more connected with others.
>
> So that if you were to express some of your own feelings, hopes, and insecurities (which you did to some extent) I would feel more on the same page with you than if you just used the terminology of a new technique.
>
> So that anything that has overtones of groupspeak is likely to arouse in me feelings of being alone, not on the same page. But that openness and genuine communication could allay that feeling of alienation.
>
> Does that make sense to you? Or resonate in any way?
>
> Actually, I think this technique might work reasonably well in communications with you, Dr. Bob. So it may be a question of different people responding differently to the same technique.
OK, let me try again. What I hear you saying is that a combination of genuine communication (sharing one's own feelings, hopes, and insecurities) and this technique has the potential to help people feel connected. Is that right?
Bob
![[collapse]](http://www.dr-bob.org/images/babble/hide.gif)
this signature | Show by default | Change to hide (next time)a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy