|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^5: What is "aggressive" argument? (theories)by shmem (Chancellor)
|on Nov 17, 2010 at 21:39 UTC||Need Help??|
I still looks exactly like a theory to me. And you aren't just writing about your perception. You are making declarative statements about the emotional state of other posters and offering no evidence to support theories of their emotional state other than their "WYSIWYG" postings.
It's not a theory, at best, a hypothesis, but it's neither. But that's beside the point.
Where did I make declarative statements about the emotional state of other posters?
The post Abigail-II responded to was totally beside the point of the thread, and told him how he should have responded. Next, Abigail-II again citing the facts and not giving a damn to this teaching (yes, again, another "theory" perhaps), his social skills were questioned. Why? to what end? Here it is where speculation begins: maybe the poster of that last post jumped on the previous to bang him in. Maybe he tried to explain what he thought Abigail-II did not get. Maybe... whatever. These are declarations about the possible "emotional state of other posters" which I did not utter in my previous post - I only did talk about possible patterns there.
Maybe the perception I have of these events long ago is different to yours, and I might be making declarative statements, but only to give an example. The evidence is: at the end of that subthread, Abigail-II left. But those declarations I gave are mine, and these are what I get from what I see. You might get something different out of these written statements, and we could go on debating the differences in perception between me an you - none of them are valid for us - "us" as "we both" - until they merge. But none of them really matter, talking about facts.
The point is: your interest in driving this debate on to either separating or merging is yours, as is your part of the emotional momentum in this debate, if it ever would happen, and I am not entitled to declare anything about them as truth, only as a speculation, and I am not entitled to label you with the outcome of my own interpretation. (this is the big strife I have with Intrepid, btw)
You declare that "willful interpretation" is being done. You declare knowledge of the internal mental responses of abigail and Abigail-II that motivated the decisions to leave.
Yes, I declare that "willful interpretation" is being done. And I furthermore declare that I have no knowledge of the internal mental responses of abigail and Abigail-II, and that I never have declared to have such knowledge.
But you did write that down as a fact: that I did. Why, what for? There. See? Is it so hard to get my point?
update: this post was done honoring "Yes, I'm honestly curious and trying to better understand what you wrote." from Re^2: What is "aggressive" argument? (enemies)