--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > While I clearly make mistakes in what I write, it is a > > deceptive tactic you have to edit statements and then > > reply to those statements out of context of the full > > paragraph. > > Look, I know you're upset because you got caught in so > many stupid mistakes in your latest attempt to "get" > Robin through me, but your objection here is pretty > silly. It is in no way a "deceptive tactic" as long as > enough context is preserved to follow the argument. > > I do my best not to snip significant context, but > sometimes it's a judgment call. If you feel I deleted > context that was essential to following the discussion, > feel free to restore whatever you think should have > been kept in. > > (You didn't happen to get an email from khazana before > writing this post, did you?)
No. I have been off the Internet for a few days. I have seen those posts subsequently. > > > While I cut and pasted various statements out > > of some of Robin's posts on which I commented, I did not > > trim any of your statements when I replied to them. > > You would have been welcome to do so as long as you were > careful not to eliminate significant context. I would > *encourage* you to do so, in fact. > > > It creates a subtle shift in meaning to do that and I feel > > you do it to bolster your own points by eliminating the > > shades of context. > > You are mistaken as to why I do it. It's a time-honored > practice on electronic forums. It's always been considered > courteous to snip whatever is not important to the context, > especially in a lengthy discussion. Sometimes it has that effect. I do understand that in long posts it makes things more legible. > > > You have accused me of ignoring context but that is more > > because I experience the context differently than you. > > Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness > > (and that does not imply I am in a different 'higher' level > > of consciousness than you), and those words that are cut > > represent what goes on in my mind. > > > > When you reply to people you trim down the context and it > > does make your replies look snappier and more to the point, > > and it reduces the chance that you will have to discuss > > more general related issues and grey areas in what was said. > > Xeno, I'm sure everything you write represents what goes on > in your mind. The problem is your mind tends to *wander*. > You typically go on and on and ON about stuff that is only > marginally, if at all, related to a discussion. I snip that > because I'm not interested in discussing it. In some peculiar way, everything is related to everything else. You do not see the forest for the trees, but when discussing trees you are unmatchable. We were discussing our views of Robin. Not Robin's views, since he was not part of the conversation. Unless you have that Third POV of Reality that Robin talks about, it would seem, that according to him, you would not be discussing truth, and nor would I have been either. > > I *don't* snip it, however, if it seems to be making a point > that's important to the issue being discussed. > > > Now Robin does that far less, he creates so much context > > it is difficult to wade through, but in many ways it is > > less disagreeable than your method; it is more poetic, how > > Robin interacts with the world. > > Robin interacts with the world his way, I interact with the > world my way. Snipping extraneous content that is no longer > immediately relevant to a lengthy discussion makes it easier > to follow both for the discussants and for anyone else > reading it. > > > If you have a poetic soul, you certainly manage to hide it. > > Never claimed to have a "poetic soul." I have an editorial > soul. My interest is in clarity and accuracy and, where > appropriate, brevity. I agree with this! > > > People of course can go back to the original post, but as > > you know, most, excepting especially you, do not do that, > > perhaps for lack of time, impatience, and a habit of > > responding to the moment. > > Xeno, you aren't getting it. If people have been following > the discussion all along, they won't need to go back to > the original post. If they come in in the middle, it's up > to them whether they want to take the time to get caught > up on what came before. It's not up to me to save them the > time or cater to their impatience or habits of responding. > Going back to an original post sometimes shows that the conversation has drifted considerably from the original material, and yet that conversation still seems to be about the original post, and refers to what was said in that post and the few that initially followed it, and yet the context of that has drifted considerably.
