On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:13:17 -0000, James Miller <ja...@aatch.net> wrote:
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.
Doesn't seem quite right to me:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
