--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll take the time to answer, since you seem > to have put so much thought into the question: > I DON'T CARE.
OK. I ws not really addressing you. Just spring boarding. > 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. You are missing my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Some opinions are are pure speculation, and some opinions can be about: i) facts that aren't true that they believe are true, i) facts that aren't true that they know are not true, but express them as opinions. Perhaps there is not a meaningful distinction here. but I wanted to explore it. You are under no obligation to stay at this table. > 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 think you have made that quite clear. Did you feel I was suggesting you were? > 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. Yes, I got it. I did not expect any response from you. I was asking for any. > > 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)? Thats fine. Not the point I was after. You are under no obligation to follow my thought there. > 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. Just curious, you have repeated the point "I don't need to respond many multiple times? Do you feel you were not clear the first time? Do you feel I, or readers have not yet gotten your point. I ask because you seem well, obsessed with repeating this point over and over -- as you have in the past. Thats certainly your perogative. Just seems strange for some one who loves good writing. I assume that implies that you feel that your opinion does not equal truth, per se. That seems consistent with your long expressed view here. Which is fine. But That strikes ideas in me, I wish to explore. And turq, please ignore if you are not interested. this is not addressed to you solely. Its a group question. If one holds that opinions do not equal truth, and there is merit to that, there seems to be something more that a dichotomous is/isn't situation. For example, if one holds the above (truth <> opinion), and one holds that the holocaust happened, then it implies that they are also quite open to the holocaust not happening. I choose this example because there appears to be so much evidence of the holocaust that not having an opinion that it happened seems odd to me. > > *** > > 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. Yes, we GOT the point. Do you feel I have been arguing with you in my original post. You seem so defensive. > > 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." Well yes, I thought it a bit of a crock when proffered to me, but I still think some transition language is helpful. Thats my opinion. YMMV. > > 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 off 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. Turq, feel free, any time, to be gratuatiously dismissive. Don't hold back.
