--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
That is certainly a novel way to avoid the responsibility to make yourself clear Judy. Does that really work for you? I wonder if that works both ways and if you yourself have demonstrated a "hostile determination to misunderstand" what I have written. You may have provided a key for me to understand the clusterfuck morass we end up in more often than not. Yes I think this is a useful concept. It does not, however, apply to me. I am good "understander" and apply those skills to what you write with no "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): > But of course. The reader is left to assume that you have lots of them. Terms like a "boatload" would be helpful in enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion. > <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. Let me stop you there. Despite your lip service to it not being anger, you compare my "transformation" to the Hulk, the personification of anger so intense that he threw cars around to emphasize his point and another murderous monster. Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with my POV which differs from yours, I will assume that this mischaractorization is one a long history of ad hominem characterizations meant to distract from your inability to answer my responses with reasoned argument. And because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding. Does that really work for you, because from this end it seems pretty transparently lame. <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"! Yeah, so it isn't the anger per se, it is the fact that I become a murderous monster under its influence. Got it. > > 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: You have made that point abundantly clear from the dramatic characters you chose to illustrate your point. Both of whom have homicidal rages used to illustrate a cartoon image for out of control ANGER, which of course you do not mean because you said so. > > "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." Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of tricks and hope I wont notice. Newsflash, I do. > > Or, as I said several posts back, you're a dirty > fighter. Another ad hominem in such a short space. Now you are just giving yourself away here Judy. You are making this too easy. I guess it allows your ego a bit of space from the reality that you are not up to the challenge. If a person exposes your BS they MUST be fighting dirty. Got it. Hope that works for you. Sounds a bit denial shielding for my taste though. > > 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. > It is "rancorous" because of your hostility and agenda to make me appear to be a bad person. I wonder where I could find an example of this...oh I know, how about when you characterized me as transforming into a murderous monster, two different versions of famously homicidal maniacs a few paragraphs above. Yes that example will do nicely. And if I object to this wildly insulting accusation it is because I am a dirty fighter who refuses to acknowledge the truthfulness of your hostile accusations. I think I understand how you are putting this together for yourself. It might interest you to know that it doesn't work as well outside your own head because out here we can smell the bullshit. > 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. > Oh the busy work of the sour... no damn that name can't be used again, it has become boring. How about this: You are a shrewish creature, but it isn't the shrewishness per se that is the problem. It is how it transforms you into...let's see...oh yes Virginia Wolf whose famously venomous tirades earned the late Elizabeth Taylor an Academy Award for her portrayal of a hateful, spiteful, drunken, irrational, horror of a subhuman. And here is the kicker. If you react to this and respond, it will be proof of my point and an example of your dirty fighting. Now I understand the appeal of your approach. Now if you will excuse me I need to go outside to throw cars into buildings, tear down trees, and murder a bunch of people before lunch, or as the Brits like to call it, tiffin.
