|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
Re^28: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 14, 2010 at 05:34 UTC||Need Help??|
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.