On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:21:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > I have gone over your posts to make sure my memory wasn't faulty, and > I do see a great number of "you ...some negative" statements. Things > like "you think wrong", "you have let yourself fall in a trap", etc. > It appears that you are now arguing that you are really very concerned > for the flaws in all of our thinking and really really wish to help us > think clearer.
Again, you misunderstand what I wrote in the thread under discussion. Are you again going to claim that it was not misunderstanding? I did not argue any such generality in this thread. I was talking specifically about the thread with Jan. You STILL have not made any comment indicating that you understood the exchange, but disagreed with my methods (yes, the latter is clear, but the former is not). <irony> As for the rest of the comments that were written in the message I am replying to, I, like David Brin, find passive agressiveness much more disagreeable than sarcasm or straightforwardness, which I (and others) often employ. Some people portray themselves as email list social experts, but I haven't forgotten that such people were at the center of the list's biggest falling out where we lost not only David Brin for a long time, but a number of other long time list members as well. Now would be a good time to make a passive aggressive comment about how I am trying to "gig" people :-\ </irony> > Limiting the discussion to the ideas that are presented helps, <sarcasm> I see. Like commenting on someone's educational background in the middle of a discussion about something else. </sarcasm> > Instead of "you think wrong", one would say "there are some > difficulties with your argument." One COULD say that. If one were disingenuous and trying to be politically correct instead of straightforward and honest. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
