--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > 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.
I'd be interested in seeing what you believe are examples of what you describe, Jim. Sometimes I do make comments that are just about language or inconsistencies without addressing the substance of the post, but if such a comment turns into a thread, it's because somebody wants to discuss that specific point. Most of the time, if I make comments on language or inconsistencies, it's because these *affect* the substance of the post in some way. > This short circuits further discussion, and prevents > the exploration of further ideas. Is that really your > intent here? Of course it isn't my intent, and it's insulting that you would suggest it is. I also fail to see how making a point about language or inconsistencies short- circuits further discussion and prevents the exploration of further ideas. That makes no sense to me.
