On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> Why do you think that is?
Good debating technique?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmed
Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote:
>
> > Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an
> order, it would
> > have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with "try". Try means to
> do something
> but not ne
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:37:19PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> Especially when "Try" can be equally viewed as a request.
Try shutting up, Rob.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mai
Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
>> Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and
>> bobing from side to sidemaru
>
> Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I
> saw a post of yours that had
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> > Why do you think that is?
>
> Good debating technique?
A) Debates are activities to be won or lost. - You claim to not care about
-winning
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Tung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and
> > bobbing from side to sidemaru
>
> Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I
> saw
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and
> bobing from side to sidemaru
Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I
saw a post of yours that had anything worthwile.
--
"Erik
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:36PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
> If you have memory problems, one technique you might find useful is to
> make written notes.
No, written notes are slow and not easily searchable. Digital notes
stored on a computer are far superior.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTEC
Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:36PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
>
>> If you have memory problems, one technique you might find useful is to
>> make written notes.
>
> No, written notes are slow and not easily searchable. Digital notes
> stored on a computer are far superior.
S
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:56:20PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
> I naturally (and erroneously) assumed that everyone on this list would
> be technologically literate enough to realise that by "written notes"
> I would naturally mean using a digital assistant of some kind. (A
> computer may not be id
- Original Message -
From: "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:58 AM
Subject: RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
>
> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:47:01PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > By "worthwile" I assume you mean "worth wile". (you left out a space.)
>
> Actually, I left out an "h", not a space. I should have written
> "worthwhile". And I see that the answer is,
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:37
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:47:01PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> By "worthwile" I assume you mean "worth wile". (you left out a space.)
Actually, I left out an "h", not a space. I should have written
"worthwhile". And I see that the answer is, "no".
> And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote:
> Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would
> have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'.
Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with "try". Try means to do something
but not necessarily expect complete success. "Try th
Erik Reuter wrote:
> > Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You
might
> > learn something.
>
> Nope, I learn more by arguing. By the way, that isn't really a
"point",
> it is more of an order.
Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would
have read
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:25:35PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> You know, trying to comunicate with you reminds me an aufull lot of
> being presented with Lisa. At first is seems quite amazing, but then,
> a bit annoying, and finaly, simply too predictable to bother.
You know, the feeling is mutual
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:08:11 -0400
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote:
>
> > Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would
> > have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with "try". Try means to do someth
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:07:13PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You might
> learn something.
Nope, I learn more by arguing. By the way, that isn't really a "point",
it is more of an order.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 06:18 PM 8/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:01:25PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting,
> why not change tack and use a different approach?
Bad question. I won't answer questions like this beginning with "
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:01:25PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting,
> why not change tack and use a different approach?
Bad question. I won't answer questions like this beginning with "why
not". That is a cop out. If you want, ma
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected.
>
> Unfortunately, sometimes you give the impression that the "mistake"
> to be "corrected" is that the other list member in the discussion
> disagrees with you.
Which is, in
At 12:26 AM 8/2/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous discussion is your
forte. I write about what I think is important, and argue against things
that I don't think are correct. I expect a high standard from people who
post on serious topics here, and when I do
I wrote:
> I deliberately wrote "sarcasm" as
> a euphemism for 'vicious personal attacks' -- your
> non-personal humor and irony, OTOH, is funny and
> welcomed.
Um, that came off a bit more arrogant than I'd
intended! What I meant is that there is a difference
between wickedly funny humor an
> If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion
> because they're unwilling to face your acidity, that
> is a loss to the list. You have politely corrected
> people in the past, and that enhances the list -
I think this is one of the most important statemts made on this topic.
Whether Yo l
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> I did provide a short explination which you did not respond to.
No you did not. You just restated your conclusion with an absurd appeal
to "general belief".
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:05:31PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > are not 100% in line with passive agressivenes then I really don't
> > know who to begin to explain it to you.
>
> Or, a more likely explanation for your inability to explain it, is tha
Continued from Friday (some snippage), and folding in
a response to Julia re: point 3)-
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even
> when it's clear
> > that they don't understand your "sarcasm."
>
> There aren't a
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:05:31PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> are not 100% in line with passive agressivenes then I really don't
> know who to begin to explain it to you.
Or, a more likely explanation for your inability to explain it, is that
you are wrong.
> From past experiences I also know th
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:03:06AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in
> > line with passive agressiveness.
>
> Explain how they do? I don't see it.
>
>
If you don't see how
>There are
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:03:06AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in
> line with passive agressiveness.
Explain how they do? I don't see it.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear
> > that they don't understand your "sarcasm."
>
> There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll
> get it eventually.
>
> > 2) Your stated wish for a societ
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > What about "Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is
> > either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse."?
>
> What about, "Acts passively agressive and disingenuousl
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ray Ludenia wrote:
> >
> > Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > > Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You
> know,
> > > having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong
> with you.
> >
> > Actually, having a ch
At 11:21 PM 8/2/2003 +1000, you wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
> Ray Ludenia wrote:
>>
>> Jan Coffey wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You
know,
>>> having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with
>>> you.
>>
>> Actually, having
Julia Thompson wrote:
> Ray Ludenia wrote:
>>
>> Jan Coffey wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know,
>>> having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with
>>> you.
>>
>> Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. I
Darn, I have leave the building now (11pm on Fri!) -
I'll reply in full on Monday, but shall clarify this
bit:
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes
> pleasantness' for
> > as many as possible (IIRC) is in dire
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:29:42PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> You are assuming that I aimed that at you?
No. I assumed it was aimed at the qualities you described.
> 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear
> that they don't understand your "sarcasm."
There aren't
Deborah Harrell wrote:
> 3) You will not allow people to 'back off' from a
> dispute, but instead try to re-engage the 'hapless
> victim' in an escalating war of words - which you seem
> to want to win quite badly.
Actually, he *will* let people "back off" if they choose to just drop
it. If he'
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > What about "Assumes that anyone disagreeing with
> their position is
> > either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse."?
>
> What about, "Acts passively agressive and
> disingenuously politically correct"?
As opposed to
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> What about "Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is
> either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse."?
What about, "Acts passively agressive and disingenuously politically
correct"?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROT
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Pensinger wrote:
> > Julia Thompson wrote:
> > > Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
> > >
> > > 1) Automatically assumes that anyone
>disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme*
>position in the direction of the disagreement.
> > >
Ray Ludenia wrote:
>
> Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know,
> > having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you.
>
> Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced.
> Choc-chips
Jan wrote:
> Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You
know,
> having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with
you.
Ray replied:
Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced.
Choc-chips are good.
Or tortilla chips a
Jan Coffey wrote:
> Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know,
> having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you.
Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced.
Choc-chips are good.
Regards, Ray.
_
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Jan Coffey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which
> this
> > > > thread is titled?
> > >
> > > Hm. After a bit of thinki
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational
responses without having read most of the previous responses.
Once again I am assuming from the context that you are addressing me
specifically. so in response
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> > Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
> >>thread is titled?
> >
> >
> > Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
> >
> > 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particula
Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> > > Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
> > > thread is titled?
> >
> > Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
> >
>
> About the article or the sidetrack?
About my n
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> > Jan Coffey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which this
> >>thread is titled?
> >
> >
> > Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
> >
> > 1) Automatically assumes that anyon
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
thread is titled?
Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point
takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the d
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
> > thread is titled?
>
> Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
>
About the article or the sidetrack?
> 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagre
Jan Coffey wrote:
> Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
> thread is titled?
At 16:25 2003-07-31 -0500, Julia wrote:
Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point
takes the *extreme* position in th
Jan Coffey wrote:
> Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this
> thread is titled?
Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have:
1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point
takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement.
2) As
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon Gabriel wrote:
> >
> > >From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
> >
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:08:50 -0500
Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> >From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PRO
57 matches
Mail list logo
