Judy: Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't
address the plausibility of the scenario.
Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly
attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence,
after having decided--on the basis of no
evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the
truth when he said he was just speculating.
Me: You missed my point completely. I wasn't commenting on his truth
telling, I was disagreeing with him and his personal attack on Rick
instead of dealing with issues Rick has raised. You didn't understand
any of my previous response did you? Your point does not matter. The
speculation point is your own weird fixation that completely missed
the point of the conversation.
Judy: I was making a "meta" observation about
*Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity
or lack thereof of the guy's analysis.
ME: Yes you were trying hard to find something wrong with what I said
so you had to focus on an irrelevant point. I have a pretty good idea
why you are so invested in defending a person who makes personal
psychobabble comments about a person personally instead of talking
about the intellectual points raised...ad hominem arguments are not
valid. Is that clear enough?
Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all
hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the
evidence while he often does exactly the
same thing he's criticizing.
ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about evidence is,
as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I was using his own words
as the basis for my opinions. He was the one who suggested that even
though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he
still had them. You are the one who is making a big deal about
evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing
ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an
irrelevant point.
The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you is what
you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting discussion.
Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion while you
pursue your own inexplicable agenda. Good luck with that.
I'll let Rick respond if he chooses to your parting shot. But I will
say that you are wrong about him and you are wrong about me.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis"
> <reavismarek@> wrote:
> >
> > Comment below:
> >
> > **
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > **snip**
> >
> > >
> > > Try this as an exercise: Assume for the sake of
> > > argument that he *is* sincere that he is just
> > > speculating, and that he's saying *if* it's the
> > > case that Rick's disappointment and doubt has
> > > led to anger and frustration, Rick might well
> > > manifest those emotions by apparently rationally
> > > questioning MMY's character.
> > >
> > > In other words, is that a plausible psychological
> > > scenario? (Not even necessarily for Rick but
> > > for people in general.)
> >
> > **snip to end**
> >
> > Judy, when I read the point in the guy's argument or
> > speculation about Rick essentially (or possibly) 'masking'
> > his true agenda of anger and frustration under a pretense
> > of openess and objectivity, it really made me question if
> > I really knew anyone who ever did that.
>
> Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't
> address the plausibility of the scenario.
> Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly
> attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence,
> after having decided--on the basis of no
> evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the
> truth when he said he was just speculating.
>
> I was making a "meta" observation about
> *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity
> or lack thereof of the guy's analysis.
>
> In my experience, Curtis tends to get all
> hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the
> evidence while he often does exactly the
> same thing he's criticizing.
>
> I mean, I
> > do know some people who attempt to project themselves in a favorable
> > light when it is obvious that they are not (or not to the same
> degree,
> > at least); but I don't know how anyone who could pull
> off 'objectivty'
> > and 'openness' on any long term basis as a "cover". You could
> pretend
> > to be open and honest for the short term, but the longer you keep up
> > the pretense it would seem to skew the person's peformance towards
> > 'openness and honesty'.
> >
> > It didn't seem to me to be a plausible psychological scenario for
> > anyone. And it doesn't sound plausible for Rick. (Not that 'that'
> > was your point, I understand.)
>
> Actually, it occurred to me this afternoon
> that Rick's "open" and "objective" and "honest"
> behavior looks very different when one has
> managed to get on his bad side (speaking from
> personal experience). So although this wasn't
> my point to Curtis, I'm beginning to think the
> guy's analysis may have been on target.
>
