|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re^4: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 02, 2010 at 01:37 UTC||Need Help??|
Ah, I see. And here I thought you were actually interested in figuring out where that fine line between arguing passionately and browbeating is...Kudos for disguising it so well
I think you should re-read the OP. There are 4 question asked. None of them ask where is the "fine line". And there is no attempt at "disguise". They all ask essentially the same question. See the very last line.
I would never ask where the line is, because there is no line--except where those sitting in judgement choose to draw it. And each will choose a different place. What to some is a "strong personal attack", other will see as nothing more than passionate discourse or humorous banter.
In part this seems to be a cultural thing. As I understand it, in Japanese, they tend to talk about things being "very difficult" when they actually consider them to be impossible. In (parts of) Europe, we tend to be rather more blunt. (Again, as I understand it) Mid-Westerners tend to more circumspect than New Yorkers.
But it is more complicated than that. That 6 yr old reference was not made in justification of anything. It was to show how where people draw that line, is not tied just to the words used, or even the strength of the sentiments expressed, but who writes them and who they are aimed at. I chose an example of my own, because I try not to sit in judgement of others.
As for "whether the community standards have changed over the past six years!!", in some areas they have. There is definitely far less newbie baiting; and far less Windows bashing here now than there was back then. I'd even like to think that I had something to do with that. You've never seen me bait a newbie. Indeed, if you care to review my record you'll find many occasions where I've gone to the defence of same.
When I respond in kind, its not tit-for-tat, but because with most people doing so is the quickest way to earn their respect. Be polite to those who are habitually polite, and you get the best interaction. Similarly, standing up to those who habitually come on strong, and usually you achieve a mutual respect. It doesn't always work, but mostly it does.
There are maybe half a dozen monks--all old hands, most pre-dating me here--with whom I've had strong exchanges. Often repeatedly. Now ask yourself why, of the hundreds of monks I've interacted with here at PM, is it always that same half dozen?
It takes two to tango. And I don't mind tangoing with anyone. I don't even mind when people on the sidelines pipe up with a "Hey! Tone it down you two.". But when the judgements or defensive interjections are all one-sided, I seek to point that out. Hence, this thread.