DMB said "Be honest, Ian. You are interested in negatively characterizing my "macho" stance for personal reasons..... [...] Even if I were an autistic macho romantic, how would saying so qualify as anything more than an ad hominem attack? "
Absolutely no dmb - that phrasing just summarised Matt's post to you, so that you could see it was exactly parallel to the earlier "water off a duck's back" problem I was referring to - again based on Steve's criticisms of you. Obviously you and you attitude are now being criticised personally, even by me, because that is the subject on the table. Yes my phrasing it to you was "ad hominem", but I don't do ad hominem (as you know), so in this case I was simply showing you that this was the criticism you were receiving from others .... and ignoring, with that water off a duck's back stance - don't take the criticism seriously just turn it back on others and a form of defence and denial. My "personal" interest is simply to get MD (with you) over this rationally autistic (SOMist) hump, but we need to overcome the denial first. Anyway, I see Matt is continuing in the direction needed. Let's hope. Ian On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > DMB said to Matt: > In my experience, accusations boil the blood only to the extent that they're > true - so much so that wild, implausible accusations will only amuse the > accused. > > > Ian said: > DMB sees offence and accusation as a source of mild amusement. As I said - > water off a duck's back is the problem - ignorance of the issues, possibly, > as you go on to suggest a kind of "macho" stance of the "real" American. > Being offended is for wimps. ...And it's so left-brain, so rationally > autistic, that I cannot understand why someone as intelligent as dmb - with > his history addressing the mythos - doesn't see the immense irony in the MoQ > context - this is not just "any" discussion list. This is the real "offence". > > > > dmb says: > That would be a good example of what I mean. To be accused of taking a > "macho" stance only amuses me. It's ridiculous. I've got soft hands, weigh in > at a whopping 135 pounds and mom always worried about me because I was sooooo > sensitive. As I see it, dealing with criticism properly doesn't demand > masculinity so much as maturity. I think of the issue in terms of what > grown-ups should be doing, as opposed to childish, irresponsible reactions - > which are usually driven by concern for the ego rather than the substance of > the issue. I remember when Krimel accused me of being too "romantic". He > thought he really zinged me with that one but it only amused me. I wish that > label fit better and so I was actually a little bit flattered by the > accusation. Anyway, these things don't hurt because they're so inaccurate. > What I'm saying is that the valid criticism is the one the really stings. > When a criticism rings true to us, it is not at all like water off a duck's > back. It's like a brand > ing iron on your ass and when you hear that sizzle, it's time to take a good > look at the criticism in question. That burning sensation is real information. > > Be honest, Ian. You are interested in negatively characterizing my "macho" > stance for personal reasons. You do not like the way I criticize your > contributions and you imagine that I could only do so if I were oblivious to > the effect it has on you, only if the other guy's feelings mean nothing to > me. Like an autistic person, you imagine that I must be blind to the social > dimension. That's not the case at all. It's just that I think it's wrong to > let those concerns run the show or dictate the terms and I refuse be coerced > by emotional manipulation. You don't have to be a MOQer to see that as a form > of corruption. We cannot give equal respect to everything that is posted just > because it was posted by a person with feelings. This isn't group therapy or > a popularity contest. If you are willing to join a group like this and you > want to post your views, you gotta live with the consequences. Like I said, > this is about maturity, not machismo. > > And come on, how bad could it really be? Let's keep things in perspective. > This is only a discussion, not a war or a plague or famine. Words are the > only weapons we have. What's the worst, most offensive thing I've ever said > to you here? Accusations of taking wishy-washy or weasel wordy stances, of > posting drivel? As I see it, the question is not whether you are offended by > that or not. Of course you are. Who wouldn't be? But what if it's true? I > mean, what if my criticism is valid? What if I'm not just picking on you and > you really do have a habit of equivocating? Ever considered that as a real > possibility? And don't you see how it is a corruption of the process to try > to neutralize criticism by attacking the character of the critic? Even if I > were an autistic macho romantic, how would saying so qualify as anything more > than an ad hominem attack? > > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
