--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > My pathologically rampant paranoia leads me to > suspect the full post was attempting to draw a > comparison between the behavior he describes of > a cocaine addict, and either my responses to > Mark Reavis or Lawson's responses to Mark or Jim > Flanegin, or to both sets of responses. <snip>
In my opinion, with so many posts here you get way too caught up in the details, and fail to see the big picture, or move the conversation towards a successful resolution. I understand that in your professional life as an editor, precision is everything. However, on a forum such as this, most everything expressed is in kind of rough draft form. Even posts well thought out are posted for their exploratory value, rather as definitive statements. Though your zeroing in on language or thought inconsistencies may be of some value, you then make those inconsistencies the point of the thread, rather than noting them, and moving on to the substance of the post. This short circuits further discussion, and prevents the exploration of further ideas. Is that really your intent here?
