From: Richard Loosemore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 14 2005 - 11:09:39 MST
Jef Allbright wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Richard Loosemore <email@example.com> wrote:
>>I am entirely at a loss to know how what you just wrote bears on the
>>text that I sent to the list.
>>Did you mean that what I wrote was in the category of
>> > <--snip--> // astute points about poorly defined concepts that are
>> > meaningless upon deeper inspection
>>What *I* wrote was meaningless upon deeper inspection???
> Well, my statement would have been self-contradictory if it said what
> you thought it might have. Since I started by calling them "astute
> points", then it would not be likely that I would proceed to refer to
> them as "meaningless upon further inspection." Much more likely that
> I meant you made astute points about (poorly defined concepts that are
> meaningless upon deeper inspection.) Namely, goal statements like
> "thinking is good".
> I was *supporting* you. Is that so unusual in your experience that
> you don't easily recognize it when it occurs?
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't upset by your comments, just momentarily
befuddled and confused! :-) I really could not tell. Perhaps I was in
too much of a rush (I had to upanchor and move from one coffee shop to
another at that point).
And, to answer your question: YES!, sad as it seems, since I came onto
the SL4 list it really has been unusual for me to get replies that are
supportive. All part of the problem you mentioned, of course.
Not just that, but when the ad-hominem attack comes, it often arrives in
the form of statements that are incoherent in themselves, or which pay
me the backhanded compliment of saying that I wrote eloquently about
ideas that were complete rubbish. Sigh!
Anyhow, see separate post (just submitted) for my modest attempt to
suggest a way forward.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 18 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT