Are you implying here, Christopher, that brees did not attribute to X a
self-description that was in fact his own construction based on his own
conclusions; or were you implying perhaps that doing such a thing is in your
opinion a "fair comment" argumentation-technique?
Uh, can you parse this sentence for me please? I only go up to a Master's Degree and J.D., I don't have a PhD. <g>
Well, i'll give it a try.
Brees wrote "We demand that you identify the posts that prove your attributions to Poet are
accurate. However we will invalidate all of them and if any seem fair we will
highlight others that make them appear not to be. S'the way things are done
roun' here. "
To which I said "Wasn't the way they were done for a long time, and I hope won't be the way
they are done in future. Seems to have been a spell we got into. Let's get out
of it. "
I was referring to the "identify the posts that prove . . ." part. As I view it, for years we survived on LWP without lengthy demands to point to posts that prove attributions. Posts, of course, would refer to the post they were directly responding to, and maybe to one or two other posts, but if we disagreed with an interpretation, we didn't spend dozens of posts trying to dig up the posts, especially ones from other threads, that justified what was said. We just said "I disagree" and moved on. That's the way my memory of the past few years here runs; I can't recall any past brohuahuas where there was such a focus on proving who said or didn't say what in what posts. Much more, can I say it, mellow and non uptight.
So when I said it wasn't the way we did things, I was referring to that part of the post.
Hope that clarifies.
But I'll also say, while I'm at it, that there are two other new, to my mind at least, trends on this thread, both of which I also regret. Not referring to any specific instances, but in general terms, something that's apparently happened several times, one is people who know person A is ignoring posts of person B or C or D or everybody sending PMs to A about what B or C or D has posted. If people want to ignore people, let it alone. JMO, but for myself, if people want to read some of what I've said here, I think they should read all of it. Posts can't stand in isolation; they're part of a continnum. Be in or be out, make your choice and stick with it. Again, JMO, but I don't like it. In this, BTW, I do follow my own advice; I have one person on ignore, and even when he posts to me I ignore it and don't take him off ignore just to challenge one post then put him back on. And yes, he's said nasty things about me, but sticks and stones . . . Anyhow, that's my preferred approach.
Two, we've gotten into trying to parse everything in such detail, these "what did you mean by that" posts, that IMO they're starting to really impede the flow of discussion, and are taking over the thread. As bad money drives out good, these seem to be driving out the substantive posting. Maybe it's just false nostalgia on my part, but I used to really enjoy some good discussions here. Now I feel like I'm wading through a marsh, to which I freely admit with regret I contributed for a while. But I wish we could quit this and move on, or back, to talking substantively about interesting topics.
All JMO. But having been part of the problem, now I'm trying to join kholt in being part of the solution.
Trying hard. |
