On 23 February 2012 05:09, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz> wrote: > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:19:17 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu > <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > >> On 2/21/12 5:55 AM, Regan Heath wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:04:59 -0000, Andrei Alexandrescu >>> <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/19/12 4:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Seriously, how is this not *already* crystal-clear? I feel as if >>>>> every few >>>>> weeks you're just coming up with deliberately random shit to argue so >>>>> the >>>>> rest of us have to waste our time spelling out the obvious in insanely >>>>> pedantic detail. >>>> >>>> >>>> It sometimes happened to me to be reach the hypothesis that my >>>> interlocutor must be some idiot. Most often I was missing something. >>> >>> >>> I get the impression that you find "Devil's advocate" a useful tool for >>> generating debate and out of the box thinking.. there is something to be >>> said for that, but it's probably less annoying to some if you're clear >>> about that from the beginning. :p >> >> >> Where did it seem I was playing devil's advocate? Thanks. > > > "Devil's Advocate" is perhaps not the right term, as you don't seem to ever > argue the opposite to what you believe. But, it occasionally seems to me > that you imply ignorance on your part, in order to draw more information > from other posters on exactly what they think or are proposing. So, some > get frustrated as they feel they have to explain "everything" to you (and > not just you, there have been times where - for whatever reason - it seems > that anything less than a description of every single minute detail results > in a miss understanding - no doubt partly due to the medium in which we are > communicating). > > > Regan > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I think that is technically called being facetious. -- James Miller