|Just another Perl shrine|
Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument?by tirwhan (Abbot)
|on Nov 02, 2010 at 08:20 UTC||Need Help??|
Is my participation in node on the subject of threading, "jumping"?
What delineates "jumping" from: supplying answers; or questioning other supplied answers?
It's "jump on", not just "jump", and again, the Wiktionary supplies a good definition.
The time-lines in threads are clearly delineated. Did I initiate?
From what I saw you initiated the hostile style, yes.
How can I definitively argue "content" where no technical content is provided?
"Incorrect content" (in your eyes) is not equivalent to "no content"
Other than by asking for technical content, which I do.
"I dare you to", "Utter FUD" is not asking. Not politely, anyway.
..one does try to discern one
"One" should consider that ones conclusion may be wrong (I know of two times in the past where you were definitely wrong in your discernment). And even if one thinks one is right, jumping on a subjectively perceived and tenuously established malicious intention is still aggression. IMO.
to be of extremely questionable value
Agreed. The bait-and-switch tactic you then employed was more distasteful though.
As such, my questioning of it was right,
Not in style or tone.
In an Operation-Enduring-Freedom-successful sort of way, yeah.
Update: shit, I really just shouldn't have bothered replying, what an utter waste of time. I am now and forever done with this discussion.
All dogma is stupid.