Re^5: What is "aggressive" argument? (theories)

[shmem]

I still looks exactly like a theory to me. And you aren't just writing about your perception. You are making declarative statements about the emotional state of other posters and offering no evidence to support theories of their emotional state other than their "WYSIWYG" postings.

It's not a theory, at best, a hypothesis, but it's neither. But that's beside the point.

Where did I make declarative statements about the emotional state of other posters?

The post Abigail-II responded to was totally beside the point of the thread, and told him how he should have responded. Next, Abigail-II again citing the facts and not giving a damn to this teaching (yes, again, another "theory" perhaps), his social skills were questioned. Why? to what end? Here it is where speculation begins: maybe the poster of that last post jumped on the previous to bang him in. Maybe he tried to explain what he thought Abigail-II did not get. Maybe... whatever. These are declarations about the possible "emotional state of other posters" which I did not utter in my previous post - I only did talk about possible patterns there.

Maybe the perception I have of these events long ago is different to yours, and I might be making declarative statements, but only to give an example. The evidence is: at the end of that subthread, Abigail-II left. But those declarations I gave are mine, and these are what I get from what I see. You might get something different out of these written statements, and we could go on debating the differences in perception between me an you - none of them are valid for us - "us" as "we both" - until they merge. But none of them really matter, talking about facts.

The point is: your interest in driving this debate on to either separating or merging is yours, as is your part of the emotional momentum in this debate, if it ever would happen, and I am not entitled to declare anything about them as truth, only as a speculation, and I am not entitled to label you with the outcome of my own interpretation. (this is the big strife I have with Intrepid, btw)

You declare that "willful interpretation" is being done. You declare knowledge of the internal mental responses of abigail and Abigail-II that motivated the decisions to leave.

Yes, I declare that "willful interpretation" is being done. And I furthermore declare that I have no knowledge of the internal mental responses of abigail and Abigail-II, and that I never have declared to have such knowledge.

But you did write that down as a fact: that I did. Why, what for? There. See? Is it so hard to get my point?

update: this post was done honoring "Yes, I'm honestly curious and trying to better understand what you wrote." from Re^2: What is "aggressive" argument? (enemies)

[tye]

Yes, I declare that "willful interpretation" is being done.

So it is okay for you to stamp that judgment of others' intent upon them. But people "MUST NOT" share their perceptions that Abigail-II wrote things in a manner that was rude or lacking in social skills. Not hard to understand... if I avoid expecting it to be consistent.

[shmem]

So it is okay for you to stamp that judgment of others' intent upon them.

You probably know best which label I stamp what people with (if I did). Where did I stamp what on whom? All I keep saying is that willful interpretation is being done. Questioning Abigail-II's social skills parting from the perception of rudeness in one posting is unwarranted in my eyes. I expressed that view to illustrate my point of view, so...

But people "MUST NOT" share their perceptions that Abigail-II wrote things in a manner that was rude or lacking in social skills.

...of course it is ok for people to share their perceptions. It is not ok to pester Abigail-II with the outcome. And it is not ok to pester BrowserUk for publishing "aggressive posts" and/or being aggressive. Which he isn't, and didn't IMHO.

In that very post you answered I wrote

You might get something different out of these written statements, and we could go on debating the differences in perception between me an you - none of them are valid for us - "us" as "we both" - until they merge.

Willful interpretation is being done - by you. Did I ever say that such debate - which is sharing perceptions - "MUST NOT" take place?

In this subthread you wrote:

You are making declarative statements about the emotional state of other posters and offering no evidence to support theories of their emotional state other than their "WYSIWYG" postings.

The statements I did make are the following (citing):

in this case, deriving a lack of social skills by willful interpretation. Read from 369365 on. He wrote Y, so he must be X / lack Z. He wrote A, so he must be in mood B.

(the lack of social skills part - quote: "Your skill or knowlege is not being questioned, your social skills are." Now this is not about the post, but evidently about the poster)

and (citing):

Next, Abigail-II again citing the facts and not giving a damn to this teaching (yes, again, another "theory" perhaps), his social skills were questioned. Why? to what end? Here it is where speculation begins: maybe the poster of that last post jumped on the previous to bang him in. Maybe he tried to explain what he thought Abigail-II did not get. Maybe... whatever. These are declarations about the possible "emotional state of other posters" which I did not utter in my previous post - I only did talk about possible patterns there.

(all "maybe", no stamp)

No, I don't offer any evidence to support theories of their emotional state other than their "WYSIWYG" postings because what evidence there is, is evidence for me alone, as a repercussion in my emotions aroused by what I read from those posts (what I see is what I get), and any conlusions I draw thereof cannot be generalized and aren't suitable to substantiate any theory whatsoever about emotional states of posters, not even these in particular.

You could now, again, take bits of this post, distort those slightly and put words in my mouth I did never utter. I hope you won't.