[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, you know all the words and you've sung all the notes, but...
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? 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)? *** 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. 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. 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. -- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edg, this one's for you, written last night, but my battery ran out before I could send it then... I know you're sensitive, and that possibly some part of you felt blown off by my I'm bored with the subject line. So I'm taking the time to explain what I mean by that and why it's not just a brush-off line. I live for two things -- writing and having really good conversations. For me, a good conversation is one in which the subject flows (in a Taoist sense) rather than sticks to the way that the subject started. I know that this is not everyone's idea of a good time, and I'm doing my best these days to remember that and respect that everyone is different. But what I get off on are the conversations in which someone says something on the subject, and the other person takes that idea and uses it as a kind of springy diving board, bouncing on it a couple of times to get the feel of it, but then taking the original subject and turning it into a triple gainer with a full twist. That is to say, taking it off the subject. But not really. The original subject sparked an idea in the other person, an idea that he or she could *relate* to something in his or her life. And so, rather than stick to the subject, the other person takes it off in a slightly different direction. The river branches. Those around the table who prefer the original subject continue to follow it. But those who prefer the new tributary branch go off with it and follow it for a while. Needless to say, I almost always follow the tributaries. But interestingly, I find that they often lead right back to the original subject. Sorta the way this story is going to, no matter how many infuriating non- sequiturial asides I subject you to. :-) I also love to write. I mean, it's pathological. You know those computer programmers who code all day and then go home and relax by sitting in front of another computer and play games till the wee hours of the evening? That's me, with regard to writing. I'm in Paris this week, not Sitges. It's the last grueling week of a long software project, and it made more sense to be here at the center
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, you know all the words and you've sung all the notes, but...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh, you know all the words and you've sung all the notes, but...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
