me: > > you cited this fellow as if his word were somehow a contribution > > without defending his perspective in any way.
Ian: > Coming from someone who cites KM on his signature line the above is > *very funny*. See I can play the same misinferential game > too.......... You don't seem to understand the difference between a statement of personal principle (which appears below the signature line) and an argument for a specific position (which appears above the line). I don't expect anyone to accept my statements of personal principle, though they might if they want. I hope to convince people of the stuff above the line. By the way, as I said before, I did not play some kind of "misinferential game" since all I did was guess about your opinion. It was explicitly a guess, which means that you can easily confirm or deny. To avoid offense, I've dropped KM (and DA) from my signature line. I had written: >>>>... But when someone uses a word representing a complex concept, it's always best to try to explain what he or she means by it. If you want have a reasonable discussion, this is better than leaving it deliberately vague or saying "it's contestable/ed so anything goes" or whatever the implication is supposed to be of the ho-hum fact that concepts are subjective. If the definition is still too vague, then people can ask for clarifications.<< Ian responded: >>> Setting a new record for inferential leaps of interpretation way beyond what I wrote once again..........<<< me:>> Well, if you'd explain what you meant rather than simply making the trivial point that concepts are subjective and leaving it there, I would not have to use phrases like "or whatever the implication is supposed to be." Also, you should note that I did not attribute any opinion at all to you in the paragraph above. I did not make any inferential leaps at all.<< > The fuck you didn't.< that's very informative. How does the phrase "or whatever the implication is supposed to be" involve any inference about your meaning? Ian wrote: >>> Yawn.<<< me:>>Sorry to bore you. I didn't know that you knew everything already.<< > Hey look everybody, a misinferral of my remark. It doesn't follow that > because I'm bored with your lecturing technique *and I am thoroughly > bored with it* that I know everything. okay, that's _is_ a misinferral. But you seem to adopt a know-it-all approach when you imply that saying that something is "contestable/ed" actually add something to a discussion and then drop somebody's name to defend your position. As for "lecturing," I must admit I do that. I try to put forth a coherent point of view. I also try not to respond simply to the person who appears immediately before my contribution to a thread. That is, I try to speak to the list as a whole. I have hoped that this would avoid personal animosity. I guess that effort has failed in this case. (Maybe I should warm up my flame-thrower. Nah. I think it's good to separate political issues from personal ones.) -- Jim Devine "Knowledge is Good." -- motto, Faber College.
