List: In my opinion, John’s example are clear and meaningful.
In my opinion, any informed professional could be insulted by the lame excuses contained in the comment below. John’s remarks have meaning for all contributors, including myself. The remarks should be taken seriously even by writers who are devoid of lexical skills in most of the academic disciplines addressed in CSP writings and hence skew the sign-al to noise ratio. Cheers Jerry > On Aug 2, 2018, at 3:32 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > John, > > You have taken your example quotes out of context. > > Now, is the above sentence a “gratuitous insult” because it has the word > “you” in it? And would it be less insulting if I had written “The examples > selected for this argument are taken out of context”, pretending that I > didn’t know who wrote it? > > >The phrase "you are confusing..." is always an insult. > > If I say “This is nonsense!”, is that not an insult because I didn’t use the > word “you”? > > I think this argument (I will not say “your” argument) ignores the basic > semiotic principle that there is no context-free meaning of any word. The > argument also fails to show any correlation between the presence or absence > of “you” in a post and the presence or absence of heatedness in the responses > to those posts. > > Case in point: If you don’t mind my saying so, you wrote: [[ EX 2 > > > I’m glad to see that you now acknowledge the reality of truth. > This is a gratuitous insult. Various subscribers to Peirce-L may quibble > about the criteria in different circumstances, but I'm sure that all of them > distinguish T and F. ]] > > Looking at the context of that statement, namely the post it replied to > (which was included in it), we see that the person who wrote it, and to whom > the reply was explicitly addressed, had in fact explicitly acknowledged the > reality of truth in the opening sentences of that post. How is it an insult > to express gladness with that acknowledgement? If I had written “You deny the > reality of truth” — or some circumlocution devised to avoid using the word > “you” — that would be a gratuitous insult. > > Was it a gratuitous insult when I wrote to Jon A.S. today that I thought his > recent post was an improvement over an something he’d said earlier? And if > so, was my message insulting simply because I addressed him directly as “you”? > > You may take offense at my criticism of your argument, and respond heatedly > to it, but I can’t honestly say that it’s my fault if you do so, and > certainly not if you take offense because I addressed you directly in it. I > am not in the least offended by your accusing me (albeit surreptitiously) of > a “gratuitous insult”; I am simply arguing against the validity of a > context-free rule of netiquette, and trying to explain why I think “Do not > take offense” is a more practical rule. > > Gary f. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> > Sent: 2-Aug-18 15:19 > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the word 'you' > > Gary F, > > The practice of avoiding the word 'you' may seem to be trivial, but it is > surprisingly effective in reducing the "heat" in heated arguments. > > GF > > Shifting the focus from the statement by “taking it personally” > > and reacting against some imagined slight in it is a habit that can’t > > be cured by avoiding any specific word across the board. > > I just went through previous notes in the "Logical Depth" thread, and I > didn't see any occurrence of the word 'you' in the remarks by Mike B. and > Gary R. They made their points effectively without saying anything offensive > to or about other subscribers. > > But following are some examples from different, unidentified senders: > > Example 1 > > You are confusing an individual comment with an assertion that the > > comment expresses THE TRUTH. > > The phrase "you are confusing..." is always an insult. It's better to say > "That's not what I implied" and rephrase the point that was misunderstood. > > EX 2 > > I’m glad to see that you now acknowledge the reality of truth. > > This is a gratuitous insult. Various subscribers to Peirce-L may quibble > about the criteria in different circumstances, but I'm sure that all of them > distinguish T and F. > > Ex 3 > > After all, with your perspective, you would end up assuming that... > > Better: "No. The point that [insert quotation] would imply that... > > Ex 4 > > this once again appears to be self-defeating; you, as an individual, > > are categorically asserting that... > > Better: "I disagree. The claim [quotation] would imply..." > > Ex 5 > > The issue you are still ignoring is that... > > Better: "But note that..." > > Ex 6 > > And that seems to me an improvement over your previous statements... > > This is a back-handed compliment, which implies that the previous > statements were bad or misinformed. Since the writer has moved > away from that position, it's best to ignore the previous issues. > Just say "Yes. I agree." > > John > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
