Re^13: What is "aggressive" argument?

[Argel]

It's called I'm not laughing!! :-) Except now I am! ;-)

[BrowserUk]

Except now I am! ;-)

(Sorry to get serious again but ... ) At last! It only took 7 levels to get that across.

... your reputation for heated debates precedes you ...

Yes. You, like others, anticipate a heated response, and read it even when it isn't there. And there is nothing I can do about it.

You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.

Of course, Tye will (has, often) accused me of doing the same. But it simply isn't so.

I read what he writes. I detect the supercilious, condescending undertones. See him revert to personal attacks to distract whenever his arguments are weak. I see him dissemble with irrelevancies, and make quotes out of context, all to conceal his lack of knowledge and/or mistakes. (Deliberate and otherwise.) And I when I do, I call him on it. And then sit back and watch as world+dog leap to his defence.

He has gotten away with it so long, he doesn't even realise he is doing it. Nor even recognise it, when it is pointed out to him.

He's been (collectively) allowed to get away with it for so long--to the significant detriment of this place--that he's come to believe his own legend.

As I said way back up there somewhere, when I see him (and others, but especially him), being subject to the same judgements as you are applying to me, I'll take them to heart.

I remain unbowed in this. Neither by "peer pressure", nor the inane, two-faced, underhand and cowardly ramblings of an insider's, sock-puppet alter-ego. Throw stones at me, and I'll throw them right back. Stick to the subject, and we'll get on just fine.

[Argel]

I read what he writes. I detect the supercilious, condescending undertones. See him revert to personal attacks to distract whenever his arguments are weak. I see him dissemble with irrelevancies, and make quotes out of context, all to conceal his lack of knowledge and/or mistakes. (Deliberate and otherwise.)

Except that arguably with just some minor changes, that could easily be used to describe your posts in various heated debates! And what about ikegami and others? Seems a stretch to compare tye and ikegami.

You argue the man, not his words. Hence that first quote in my sig.

That quote only works in an ideal world. In the real world it is poor advice given that there are often times when it is more important to know who is speaking. Politicians are an obvious example, where everything they say should in general be treated as suspect. Beyond that, the written word is often ambiguous and subject to interpretation. That's true even when it comes to legalese, which is a much more rigid form of English, something your quote doesn't address. And it seems folly to deny oneself the benefits of past experience to help resolve said ambiguity, etc.

Yes. You, like others, anticipate a heated response, and read it even when it isn't there. And there is nothing I can do about it.

Yes you can! You may be sparring with tye or ikegami, but do not forget that you have an audience that goes beyond them as well. Instead of just continuing your sparring match, try writing for the rest of the audience as well. In short, try being more civil.

I remain unbowed in this. Neither by "peer pressure", nor the inane, two-faced, underhand and cowardly ramblings of an insider's, sock-puppet alter-ego.

Can't you see that comments like this just reinforce negative impressions people have of you!?!

[BrowserUk]

Can't you see that comments like this just reinforce negative impressions people have of you!?!

Had you restricted the quote upto the first comma, I might have thought about that. But you didn't.

IBGS is all of what I said he is. And more that I suppressed 'in the interests of the community'.

[BrowserUk]

And what about ikegami and others? Seems a stretch to compare tye and ikegami.

Sorry, but this took a while to put together.

Re-read for yourself, in posting order and context, the recent ikegami run-in:

1. OP asks
2. I answer
3. Ike (now admitted; falsely) asserts
4. I question (politely)
5. Ike asserts (non-existant failure modes)
6. I (technically) challenge him to demonstrate
7. Ike a) mis-quotes me(since obliterated); b) claims to have demonstrated (also obliterated)
8. I a) correct him. b) tell him his assertions are false; c) politely request a demonstration or retraction; explaining why.
9. Ike a) insults me ("playing dumb"); b) falsely claims to have already demonstrated!
10. I (politely) ask where I've missed this demonstration;
11. Ike then a) admits he hasn't yet demonstrated; b) posts a non-demonstration.
12. I (finally) succumb to the frustration with (what most people would see as) the very mildest form of technical personal chiding. And then only by turning the insult he previous threw at me, back at him, having ignored it for several posts.
13. Ike respond with defensive rebukes, attacking the form of the message rather than its content, and erroneous rhetorical distractions.

Now, who started the insults? And who raised the bar?

And, if anyone actually cared, they'd find the same thing with most other threads in which I am accused of getting heated.