On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:01:25PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: > If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting, > why not change tack and use a different approach?
Bad question. I won't answer questions like this beginning with "why not". That is a cop out. If you want, make your POSITIVE point. No point trying to get me to make a negative point. > "Force" - of course not; that's silly. But that is basically what you wrote -- you said I did not "allow". That implies force. > But taunt in a way that the reader is likely to flare back? Oh, yes. So what? They can "flare back" or not as they like. > A personal example: you recently wrote something derogatory about my > attributes as a physician. That is the type of remark designed to > provoke a sharp response. I chose not to respond at all, but I did > *not* appreciate the cut. I did not write something derogatory about your attributes as a physician, I wrote that you had been through med school, so I was certain that you could handle basic math. And what I did write obviously did not provoke a sharp response, since you did not respond. Your comments in this thread are mostly nonsensical. When it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as not making sense, why not change tack and write something that makes sense? > <grin> Well, as to the latter, I believe you asked "who won?" WRT > a disagreement we had, when I said I was out of that thread b/c it > wasn't fun anymore... <serious> "Getting the last word" is one way to > 'win' an argument or disagreement. [*I* of course never try to get in > the last word. <duck lightning!!> ;)] Who cares who "gets in the last word". This is getting tiresome. I will probably not reply again, so feel free to "get in the last word" and "win". > <very serious> You tend to "go for the jugular," and that frequently > either provokes defensive responses or withdrawal. As if you weren't > well aware of that. And you tend to take the sickeningly inane politically correct viewpoint on many disagreements, rather than having a vigorous debate that actually accomplishes something. As if you weren't well aware of that. > <grin> Whaddaya mean, "studying"?!? How many impossible things do you believe before breakfast? > Your definition of "vigorous discussion" includes personal insults? My definition of vigorous discussion includes what some people may perceive as personal insults. > I'm not asking that you stop correcting mistakes you see - just not > with personally insulting remarks. What you consider insulting. Well, I am asking that you stop posting nonsensical things and inane PC tripe, and that you start being more quantitative in your posts. How likely do you think we are to get what we have asked for? > If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion because they're > unwilling to face your acidity, that is a loss to the list. And if someone makes an interesting contribution to a discussion because they're affected by my style, that is a gain to the list discussion. > You have politely corrected people in the past, and that enhances the > list - why not use that more instructional mode? There is no repeatable scientific test for god. Why not become an atheist? Why not stop asking these silly "why not" questions? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
