Re^20: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 12, 2010 at 01:39 UTC||Need Help??|
But more importantly, this thread is about you and things you can do to improve your situation.
No. It isn't! I started this thread, so I reserve the right to decide upon its purpose, and that is not it!
It might be the purpose you think it should have; or even the purpose you've decided to try and bend it to; but it is not my purpose.
So let me try (one final time) to clarify my purpose.
You see, I do not believe written argument can "be aggressive". Words cannot leap off the screen and punch you in the face; nor lie in wait in a dark alley to confront you. If you google "physical aggression", you'll get ~1/4 million hits; "verbal aggression" much the same; but "written aggression" and you'll get a paltry 643.
But, a tiny proportion of the perlmonks community have taken it upon themselves to accuse me of "aggressive argument". So, in respect to the community, I attempted to get a feel for what, if anything, constituted a "community consensus" on the matter.
I did this because if there was any such consensus, that could be adequately codified, then I would
To date. I see a) no consensus; b) no universal application of (even) the capricious, unwritten judgements being applied to me; c) no modicum of realisation by those sitting in judgement, of the arbitrary and capricious nature of their judgementalism.
I was more than happy to allow IBGS to continue cowardly spewing his tiresome venom in my direction, for as long as he felt the need to do so, because his unchallenged and upvoted fifth was making my point for me, far more strongly than I could have done alone. The fact that you came out to bat for him was just the icing on the cake.
I've said this (less formally), at least twice before in this thread, but for the sake of completeness, and in the hope of putting this now meaningless dialog to rest, I'll repeat it one last time.
If, as and when I see you and others applying the same censorship & censure to others--not just my sparring partners, but others too--as you seek to apply to me, then I will take said censoring and censure under advisement. That is, I will attempt to avoid the need for censure, by applying self-censorship commensurate to my understanding of your 'rules', to my writings here.
But while it remains unwritten, decided arbitrarially by a self-appointed minority of individuals, and applied capriciously, to only me or some small subset of those writing here, I feel no obligation to be so bound.
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.