Re^3: What is "aggressive" argument? (enemies)

[shmem]

So your theory is that there were people who considered Abigail-II an "enemy" and this nonsense drove her away?

No. It's not a theory - I'm writing about my perception; and then, wrt Abigail-II, it's not about enemity or enmity, but the same type of nonsense: in this case, deriving a lack of social skills by willful interpretation. Read from 369365 on. He wrote Y, so he must be X / lack Z. He wrote A, so he must be in mood B. All that without even knowing the source of the postings but through manifestations in a public forum. This is what I utterly condemn. A related sort of maltreatment happened to Abigail when his sex was discussed, and so he decided to leave. See 96213.

I repeat: Posts are WYSIWYG. What you read is all yours. Deriving an intent, a hidden agenda, an emotion or mood of the poster based on the content is an excercise which may further human understanding. But the findings of such excercise may be discussed with, if he so wishes, but MUST NOT be stamped on the poster.

[tye]

Interesting. Reading 369365 and on, I don't see much drawing of conclusions about Abigail-II. Actually, I don't see any until a few posts later when "social skills" is finally mentioned (and Abigail-II brought up the subject of "social workers" so mentioning "social skills" seems more like following what was written than inventing things). Saying that somebody was being rude is not a characterization of the person nor their mental state but a description of their actions.

[Update: And I don't even agree that "lack of social skills" is necessarily a conclusion about the person behind Abigail-II. I find it more likely that it is just a lazy expression of "your wording was not expressed in a socially skillful manner"; that it was a characterization of the writing not of the author.]

In reply to that node, I do see Abigail-II jumping to conclusions about the mental state of another poster. "still you're not satisfied" is quite clearly such a deriving of an emotion or mood and "stamping" it upon somebody else.

It's not a theory - I'm writing about my perception

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.

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.

[shmem]

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)

[tye]

Yes, I declare that "willful interpretation" is being done.

So it is okay for you to stamp that judgment of others' intent upon them. But people "MUST NOT" share their perceptions that Abigail-II wrote things in a manner that was rude or lacking in social skills. Not hard to understand... if I avoid expecting it to be consistent.