--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> 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.
>
Oh ye of thinnest skin, the absurd argument you've started with
Curtis over the meaning of road rage, for one. But you have a fuller
bladder than I do apparently, so I'll not continue this.
