Originally Posted by
WI-Tom
So far, we're in agreement. Here's where our conclusions diverge:
That comes across as extremely condescending. Why? Because you don't have any basis on which to judge my motivations, and yet you are making the huge assumption that I am operating in bad faith. And your conclusions on this are, quite frankly, dead wrong. So, you've started off on a bad foot. But I'm still listening.
OK, although my initial reaction is to disagree, that's certainly open to debate. The usual course of action for someone making such a claim would be to provide some specific examples of my paraphrasing and offer an explanation of what makes them "bad." One good procedure for doing that would be to compare models of varying levels of effectiveness and discuss what makes each one good or bad. I'll certainly be interested if you ever do something like that. Until then, however, you're just making pronouncements without evidence--a particular rhetorical weakness of yours I've pointed out to you numerous times. But I'm still listening.
So, this:
OK, you're using qualifiers like "seemingly" and "appears to be" here, which I appreciate. But again, your conclusions about my motivations and intentions are wrong. You aren't in any position to know that, of course, but I am. I'd ask that you provide specific evidence of bad faith or dishonesty before believing it exists. I consider that a basic courtesy that I am willing to extend to most posters here, and I'd appreciate the same in return. Your post, even with the qualifiers you were careful to add, does come across as very close to an accusation of dishonesty on my part.
Yes. Some of my posts certainly appear to trigger adverse reactions from certain WBF members. On the other hand, other WBF members have often noted some of my posts as reasonable, honest, and accurate. Some here have even admitted to changing their minds because of things I've posted.
So, are there arguments and disrespect? Yes. To what degree its origins are in my posts vs. in my readers' interpretations is an open question. I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming the basis is completely one way or the other. I feel that you, for one, are very quick to place the blame on me. You seem determined to interpret my words in the least positive way possible--that's probably a result of our history, eh?
OK, this:
First, I see that, again, you seem to be making the unwarranted assumption that I don't try to paraphrase accurately. Unless you have evidence that I am trying to be dishonest--and you don't--please assume I'm acting in good faith. I do the same for you and other posters, and I'd appreciate that basic courtesy.
You're also making assumptions that I don't read carefully. In fact, I'll warrant that I am one of the more careful readers in the Bilge.
I think where you go wrong here is that I often respond to the unspoken assumptions, implications, and the inevitable logical conclusions of what someone has posted--things that the original poster probably didn't say explicitly, but can be reasonably inferred if one is willing to think analytically. That's just my default mode of operating, for better or worse. When someone advances a claim, my mind instantly reacts by thinking "If THAT is true, then THIS must also be true" or "When you say _______, you seem to be implying ______."
I also assume--wrongly, I suppose--that everyone recognizes that all of my conclusions are provisional, and remain susceptible to evidence--even though I don't always include explicit qualifiers in my posts. And so, when I paraphrase what someone else said, I do it to present a hypothesis. If someone thinks I've paraphrased them incorrectly, and reached the wrong hypothesis as a result, I expect them to tell me so, and explain how I've not accurately restated their views.
A pipe dream, I know! But then, you already knew me to be somewhat Quixotic, I think.
Tom
Re: Berniacs Need To Grow TF Up
Reply With Quote
