quote: If you care to look at the time & date of this post, it was 6:53PM on the 13th of Sept (Ornery time). If you look at the time & date of my suposed apology, it was 3:18 AM of the 14th of the Sept. (I assume my post on the Ornery Rules thread is the one he refers to, as it is the closest I have come to apologising.) So in this case Pete launches an attack against me because he couldn't be bothered noting the time different posts were written.
And for the record, my opinion of Pete has not changed, and nor do I see reason for apology.
I do. I apologize. I should have remembered that you're on the other side of the world and that today's date-stamp does not mean that it was posted later than what I saw last night.
quote:IMO, Pete continuosly misrepresents me because he continuosly misunderstands me, and because he sincerely (and subconsciously) recasts his memory of events to place himself in a better light.
That might be true, but veryifying it would be harder than checking a time-stamp.
quote:He also refuses to take responsibility for the inflamatory way in which he discusses various topics
That's not true. I deliberately go out of my way to challenge foolish assumptions and bad logic, and I am fully aware that doing so is inflammatory. I don't take responsibility for your subsquent misbehavior, but I do take responsibility for my own actions.
quote: , made more inflammatory because (at best), he is careless about how expresses his ideas.
We could all be more careful, but I'm more careful than most about how I express my ideas. Anyone who wants to argue an original thought, is used to getting ramrodded into some stereotype. If I wasn't careful about how I express an idea, Ev would still assume I opposed socialized medicine just because I oppose ssm. That was a long and painful fight.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
PALADINE, if you see this please check your email and call me. Thanks.
I reread some of your posts, and let things digest.
You are obviously intelligent and have worthwhile things to say. In my opinion, your incidences of unintentionally inflammatory prose are more frequent on a per post basis than most people. Given the benefits of your posts, I will try harder to ignore them.
If your goal is to have polite discourse, I think it is wise to follow the advice I gave on the Indecent Proposal thread:
quote:Part of the solution to the problem is, as you have counseled me, present only the facts. Refrain from belittling comments, sarcasm, and exaggeration. Reread every post 3 times before you post to make sure no nasty undertones remain. Most important, your goal should be to completely understand the other point of view before you push your own.
I do not always follow this myself, but I try.
As a learning experience, and not to throw anything in your face, here is an example of what pushed my buttons.
My point on this thread was that if evidence repeatedly fails, powerful words can bring attention to the problem of someone spreading misinformation. Maybe I didn't say it clearly, or you thought I clearly said something else. But that was my point.
Your response was not, "Yes, but make sure you exhaust all options of presenting evidence first". Your response was "Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts."
This in and of itself is not rude or a personal attack. But I assume it was a statement intended to change my views. In order for that to make any sense, my view would have to be that saying the word "liar" is indeed a substitute for facts. Since that is a direct contradiction of my statements, I conclude that you did not understand them. My insistence that evidence comes first was explicit, so your misunderstanding is troubling, and I attributed it to sloppiness or intentional distortion. Sloppiness with apathy is acceptable. Sloppiness with vehemence is inflammatory.
On another level, you took my position that saying the word "liar" under specific conditions was acceptable, and conflated it with someone uncontrollably spouting profanity at total strangers in public. While not a direct attack, it can be perceived as pretty offensive.
As I said, it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it. I am not blameless in this, as the record shows. I will try to follow my advice, and I will try to ignore it when you don't follow it. But I ask that you try a little harder to keep the belittling comments, sarcasm, and exaggeration out of your posts.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |