--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Curtis, you keep *proving my point*. When you get angry, > > you go blind. I can't count the number of misreadings > > of what I've said in what you write below. You're > > responding to posts you wrote in your own mind and > > attributed to me, not to my actual posts. How much of > > that is willful and how much is due to the red spots > > in front of your eyes, I couldn't say. > > The burden of clear communication is on the writer Judy, > as an editor you should know that.
Total bullshit in this context. The writer can't be blamed for not being able to overcome a reader's hostile determination to misunderstand. Gonna give you just one example from your previous post (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of misreadings): <snip> > > > > Two hints: (1) Not looking for a guru in Curtis; and > > > > (2) anger *per se* isn't the problem. It's the Hulk- > > > > like transformation the anger triggers that's the > > > > problem. Or maybe Jekyll/Hyde is a better analogy. > > > > > > Off my schtick for a moment here. Your complaint is > > > ridiculously pointed at me for the most human quality of > > > reacting angrily to hostility and (what seems to me) > > > unfair attack. I say "anger *per se* isn't the problem," and you respond that I'm complaining about your anger. Yet above you said, "I am usually pretty close in understanding what is being conveyed." Sure, if understanding the direct opposite of what is being conveyed is what you call "pretty close"! And I've already been very specific a number of times about what I mean by "transformation." In my last post in our previous exchange, I put it this way: "The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense of proportion and fairness, and you too often become actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after another, as you just did above. You pull out your sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either side." Or, as I said several posts back, you're a dirty fighter. Anger *per se* isn't the problem. As you say, reacting angrily to hostility and perceived unfairness is a "most human quality." You wouldn't be human if you didn't. You *could*, however, do so without feeling you have to fight dirty. That is not an unavoidable feature of rancorous debate. That's all I have time for now, but blatant misreadings like this pervade your response. If I can, I'll get to some more of them later tonight.
