--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: <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.
I think you mean Curtis's (exceptionally dishonest) attack on me, don't you? You know, the one in which he equated "angry wisdom" with road rage in order to demean it, and suggested that my purported anger was equally psychologically unbalanced as the anger of drivers who attack drivers with their vehicles? Yeah, how thin-skinned of me to find that offensive.
