in reply to
Re^14: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?
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.)
Except that arguably with just some minor changes, that could easily be used to describe your posts in various heated debates! And what about ikegami and others? Seems a stretch to compare tye and ikegami.
You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.
That quote only works in an ideal world. In the real world it is poor advice given that there are often times when it is more important to know who is speaking. Politicians are an obvious example, where everything they say should in general be treated as suspect. Beyond that, the written word is often ambiguous and subject to interpretation. That's true even when it comes to legalese, which is a much more rigid form of English, something your quote doesn't address. And it seems folly to deny oneself the benefits of past experience to help resolve said ambiguity, etc.
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.
Yes you can! You may be sparring with tye or ikegami, but do not forget that you have an audience that goes beyond them as well. Instead of just continuing your sparring match, try writing for the rest of the audience as well. In short, try being more civil.
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.
Can't you see that comments like this just reinforce negative impressions people have of you!?!
Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks