I'm here. Are you there?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What the fuck, dude.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You raised that topic, though, whether it belonged in the thread or not, so I responded, and now you're acting like I shouldn't respond.

I'm acting like I don't understand why you keep asking about "the point of the thread" or "what the OP was about" when I've stated what it's about and you seemed to understand. Until you decided to quote a post which was a response to a number of your points and reply with only "what is this all about?" again. Again.

And saying that I've been "increasingly unpleasant to interact with", which is slightly ironic in the sense that I feel exactly the same way about you. I feel like for the last week or so every response you have made to me has been adversarial; it comes across to me as if you are reading my posts with a presupposition about my intentions and tone. I can't really do much about that, but it is frustrating.

I got the impression you were assuming my posts to be adversarial well before they were, as they are in this thread.
Have you been reading into questions about your intentions and tone, presuppositions about them?
Because, of course, there has to be a suspicion about your tone before I ask, but I tried to quite gently ask for clarification where it was unclear. You responded to that with posts very similar to those made in this thread.

How has your approach to posts you think presume too much about your tone any differered from the paranoia you're complaining about?

And your current position doesn't even make any sense to me. I can't make heads or tails of the actual point you're trying to make, if you're trying to make one at all. Your clarification seems to be "I don't have a point" and your basic position seems to be "shut up".

Either you actually have the reading comprehension difficulty you'd need to have to be in this position, or you're deliberately failing to understand so you can justify responding as if my position is "shut up". Either way, this reads like a script I already know, so I'm not going to bother continuing to restate my case only to have your original interpretation repeated over and over. Perhaps this is deliberate, as you seemed to say the same behaviour was in RWHN's thread. I don't have enough confidence in your willingness to actually consider your behaviour to continue to have any discussion about it, though.

I'm going to go with "reading comprehension difficulty" because whatever you said here just flat-out doesn't make any sense at all to me. I no longer even know what you're talking about at all.

[Pæs]

Okay. I'm sorry if I've seemed to be excessively adversarial lately. I'm going to drop it now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Okay. I'm sorry if I've seemed to be excessively adversarial lately. I'm going to drop it now.

Coolio. Likewise.

[LMNO]

For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.

Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.

Ok, I just sort of noticed this.  As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.

The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.

You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.

Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.

I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates.  But that doesn't always happen.

And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber.  It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama.  In my opinion.

Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What are you even talking about? Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread? If yes, what is it, and what would you like to see done about it?

Ugh. You're actually becoming increasingly unpleasant to interact with.

And your posts - in this thread - are becoming increasingly more pleasant to read, because it makes me feel that I'm not the only one gobbling PILLZ HERE like Pez.



Just saying.

TGRR,
Totally lost.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.

Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.

Ok, I just sort of noticed this.  As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.

The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.

You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.

Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.

I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates.  But that doesn't always happen.

And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber.  It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama.  In my opinion.

Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.

I'm gonna keep communicating the only way I know how.  And if that makes me Butch Cassiday and Nigel the Sundance Kid, I'm okay with that.

TGRR,
SHOT TO DEFF IN BOLIVIA, LEAKING ALL OVER THE STREET.

[LMNO]

I expect no less, dear sir.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.

Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.

Ok, I just sort of noticed this.  As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.

The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.

You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.

Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.

I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates.  But that doesn't always happen.

And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber.  It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama.  In my opinion.

Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.

You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.

I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.

[LMNO]

Well, fuck you too.
















But I get what you're saying.  If everyone posted like I do (most of the time), the world would be a better place.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  It's true. But homogeneity is dull and agreement doesn't lead to new thoughts.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.

Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.

Ok, I just sort of noticed this.  As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.

The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.

You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.

Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.

I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates.  But that doesn't always happen.

And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber.  It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama.  In my opinion.

Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.

You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.

I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.

Alongside myself, of course, as I am known and noted for not flying completely off the fucking handle over a misunderstanding.  I am this century's Ralph Waldo Emerson in terms of my composure if not my content.

More people should be like me.  Then everything would be awesome, and we'd never argue again.  Ever.

[LMNO]

Praise be!


But seriously.  I should be an Admin.  Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Praise be!


But seriously.  I should be an Admin.  Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.

That was then; this is now.  I think you'd be fine as an admin.

[LMNO]

Praise be!


But seriously.  I should be an Admin.  Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.

That was then; this is now.  I think you'd be fine as an admin.