--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good post Turq. > > And I will use this as a springboard to some thoughts that occurred > to me. > > The main set of thoughts your post invoked have to do with "other > than > opinion" being expressed. Or grossly inaccurate information being > expressed as an opinion. I don't have a strong opinion yet on where > good markers are -- by which I will try to post. But here are some > extreme examples. What are just "opinions" where no correction is > called for. Though someone might offer up that they have an > different opinion than yours. > > HYPOTHETICALLY, if some ones states the following as their opinion, > when if ever is any thing more than "I have a different opinion, > here it is" is warranted. > > Mr Opinionated HYPOTHETICALLY states, AS HIS OPINION: > > 1) Americans never landed on the moon, it was a hoax. > > 2) The Holocaust never happened > > 3) All pakastanis are liars. > > 4) GWBush is the greatest president ever. > > 5) Global Warming is a hoax and will never happen. > > 6) A large majority of scientists tend to oconcur on the large body o > scientific studies over 20 years that indicate that global warming > has a greater than 95% chance of occuring at levels that will effect > over 100 million people significantly and adversely. > > 7) "Lost" sucks. > > 8) You lied > > 9) Even if it was a lie, i didn't intend it as a lie so its ok. > > 10) 2+2 = 5 > > 11) the sun revolves around the earth > > 12) The Theory of Evolution is bogus an a pack of lies > > > REMEMBER these are HYPOTHETICALLY statements by an ficticious > figure. these are NOT my opinions. > > Which of the above are pure opinions in which no correction is > warranted or polite?
I'll take the time to answer, since you seem to have put so much thought into the question: I DON'T CARE. The keyword in your blurb above is "warranted." "Warranted" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone reads an opinion of mine and wants to present a different one, that's his business. If others want to present a contrary one, that's their business. If someone wants to go postal and get all critical about my opinion, that's their business. Not mine. I am under no obligation to respond to *any* of the above responses to some opinion of mine that I post. The original opinion stands on its own. I may choose to reply, if I want to. But *only* if I want to. I am under no obligation to anyone here to respond to their posts, just because they expect a response. If they get their noses bent out of shape because I don't respond, that too is their business. > Rather if one has a different opinion they should > state it as such. Only. And that there are no grounds to try to > correct the other's opinion (if it indeed is pure opinion)? Clearly, some folks are under the impression that their opinion *equals* "truth" or even "Truth," and if they get off on that fantasy, I wish them well with it. I am under no more obligation to respond to it. It's their business, not mine. > *** > Another thought stemming from your post: > > One of which is that I heartily agree that others posts at time > create great springboards, an I often jump askew of the post. To > some this seems to be confusing, or even an insult. Again, that's their business. Or limitation, however you choose to see it. I merely stated how I approach discussions. Others are free to approach them however they want, within the FFL guidelines. > When going out on my own tangent, I have been reprimanded for doing > so in that paraphrasing, "its common knowledge in WWW etiquette > that its not proper to respond to a post without responding to the > posters topic." It's also "common knowledge" that America has the highest standard of living in the world, and that's a crock of shit. :-) Crocks of shit tend to proliferate, many of them called "common knowledge." > A response that has totally puzzled me, but I can see the essence of > it. It occurs to me sometimes, I write something, someone responds > "way of track" (my initial misview) aka "their own tangent (more the > reality) and I have thought, or sometimes written, "WTF, I didn't > imply THAT" This seems to be one of several sources of > misunderstandings, sometimes leading to personal insults. My > opinion: it might be useful to make such a transition explicit. > I am going to try to do that. Whatever floats your boat.
