Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re^26: What is "aggressive" argument?

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Nov 13, 2010 at 07:46 UTC ( #871214=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^25: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

You'll have to forgive me, or not, for this second post, but I'd really like an answer to this. By /msg if you feel unable to do on the record.

How many levels deep has the thread gone (deeper is usually bad)?

At exactly what point in this 23/24/25 level deep thread should I have stopped responding? 10? 15? 20?

Whichever number you pick, why didn't you apply that rule to yourself?

And while you're at it, at what arbitrary point should I have cut off the OP in this thread that finishes up 27 levels deep with the OP thanking me profusely?

And that's the trouble with arbitrary rules. They are nonsensical, ludicrous & inane.

You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.


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.


Comment on Re^26: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^27: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 13, 2010 at 23:00 UTC
    If I thought you were really a troll then I should have bailed out at Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument? (specifically, Re: What is "aggressive" argument? should have been my last post in that thread).

    If you sort all of your nodes using "Lowest Reputation First" you should see that there is a loose correlation between depth and node rep.

    You seem to be a very left-brained individual, which I think explains the communication disconnect that often seems to occur. I gave you some guidelines that I felt would help you identify when you are becoming too emotionally involved in a heated discussion -- when e.g. you should just let things go. This is something you will have to determine for yourself, on a case by case basis. People are not computers and each thread is unique, so there are no set answers to give. At best we could probably come up with some guidelines based on the data in the PM database (made up example: a node 35 deep is 90% likely to have a negative node rep). I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do.

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      I gave you some guidelines that I felt would help you identify when you are becoming too emotionally involved in a heated discussion -- when e.g. you should just let things go.

      And there it is again. You, through some undefined and indefinable mechanism--like water divining--are judging my written words as "too emotional". Despite the fact that I've consistently refuted that judgement with purely logical reasoning. You are, whether you like the characterisation or not, still trying to impose your censorship on my writings.

      I have, through that process of unemotional, logical reasoning, reached and expressed my conclusion, that those attempts are wrong. And still you persist in trying to censure me. It appears important to you. And in the process, you are breaking the very rules that you would impose upon me.

      I'm sure that by now 80% of the monastery have long since stopped reading. And of the rest, more than half would, had they an anonymous button they could press to make this thread vanish, push it. If one of them replied to one of your nodes in this thread and told you: "I'm bored with your writing, just stop!". Would you?

      It all comes down to you wanting me to submit to "your better judgement". You want me to "admit" that you are right, and I am wrong. Despite that this is a subject where no such 'rightness or wrongness' can be attributed outside of majority vote.

      Most (not all, but most) of my long, deep, by your judgement: "too emotional" threads. are very clearly underlain by a striaght-forward technical issue. One that can--in the presence of clear demonstration; ie.code--be irrefutably decided one way or the other. And the vast majority of the friction that arises, does so because people--a particular few--refuse to back up their assertions with proof in the form of code. Preferring instead to dissemble and deflect, by attackng the form of the message or the messenger, rather than the content of the message.

      So, once again, I refute your right, mandate nor even consensus, to unilateral decide what of my writings are "too emotional" or "too aggressive" or just "too loud". I refute that your judgements on these issues have any basis in definable, measurable fact. And even if they did, I refute your right to make them.


      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.
        I refute that your judgements on these issues have any basis in definable, measurable fact. And even if they did, I refute your right to make them.
        You do realize that if you refute my right to express my free will then you are in-effect refuting your own right to do the same, right?

        Anyway, so you basically just said you couldn't care less about any credible evidence. Of course, based on past posts, it's a safe bet that you *would* use evidence that supported your position. And unfortunately, that leads me to conclude you have been trolling since your OP. The only thing I cannot figure out is if you are even aware of that. You would probably claim you do not care. But ironically you do care that in your mind you are being unjustly singled out. It's too bad you cannot connect the dots. Paraphrasing what I said earlier, I hope you enjoy your one man crusade against the world.

        Update: Fixed: "could care less" should be "couldn't care less".

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Re^27: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 14, 2010 at 01:23 UTC
    You (collectively, that small minority already identified), are asking me to conduct myself not according to some logical set of rules or guidelines, but to whatever flight of fancy pops into one of your heads at given any moment in time.
    Circumstances and conditions vary, in the same way which affects safe driving speeds.
      what a stupid thing to say since safe driving speeds obey a logical set rules, and are not subject to flights of fancy
        And yet the point of that comparison was to make clear that the use of phrases like "flights of fancy" is circumlocution to ascribe either personally-malicious or maliciously-apathetic whim to judgements that depend entirely on the situation ("this has gone on too long") or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://871214]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-09-17 10:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (72 votes), past polls