Judy:"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?"
Me: There was nothing dishonest in what I wrote. But here you have made a slippery move haven't you? I was talking about people getting angry behind the wheel because they feel more powerful in a car. Later I made a distinction between road rage behaviors and aggressive driving, so I know you are aware that this is not what I said or meant. But it sounded better to turn it into me equating your posting behavior with "attacking drivers with their vehicles' didn't it? Here is the actual post: I come across a lot of "angry wisdom" drivers on the Capital Beltway. They pound on their dashes and point to other drivers as if every lane change is a personal attack on them. I have heard that road rage is a way to feel powerful behind the wheel of a car when the person feels powerless in their personal life. Or maybe "angry wisdom" people are like a person carrying a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to pound on. Feeling as if they are the only skilled drivers on the road and everyone else must be corrected to their "bad driving." "Angry wisdom", man that is a great phrase! --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > 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. >
