|Perl Monk, Perl Meditation|
Re^14: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 09, 2010 at 22:08 UTC||Need Help??|
Except now I am! ;-)
(Sorry to get serious again but ... ) At last! It only took 7 levels to get that across.
... your reputation for heated debates precedes you ...
Yes. You, like others, anticipate a heated response, and read it even when it isn't there. And there is nothing I can do about it.
You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.
Of course, Tye will (has, often) accused me of doing the same. But it simply isn't so.
I read what he writes. I detect the supercilious, condescending undertones. See him revert to personal attacks to distract whenever his arguments are weak. I see him dissemble with irrelevancies, and make quotes out of context, all to conceal his lack of knowledge and/or mistakes. (Deliberate and otherwise.) And I when I do, I call him on it. And then sit back and watch as world+dog leap to his defence.
He has gotten away with it so long, he doesn't even realise he is doing it. Nor even recognise it, when it is pointed out to him.
He's been (collectively) allowed to get away with it for so long--to the significant detriment of this place--that he's come to believe his own legend.
As I said way back up there somewhere, when I see him (and others, but especially him), being subject to the same judgements as you are applying to me, I'll take them to heart.
I remain unbowed in this. Neither by "peer pressure", nor the inane, two-faced, underhand and cowardly ramblings of an insider's, sock-puppet alter-ego. Throw stones at me, and I'll throw them right back. Stick to the subject, and we'll get on just fine.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.