On Wednesday 20 Apr 2011 9:58:27 am Deepa Mohan wrote: > Shiv, I agree with Heather about not needing words like "neurotic > obsession" just because Robert Lustig has written something that you > don't agree with. >
Interesting that it should come to this. I believe that we spend most of our time misunderstanding each other in this form of communication. The amount one has to write to try and avoid misunderstanding is huge and it still fails to prevent misunderstanding. Nothing is guaranteed to explain what anyone really thinks to everyone who reads those words. So, long ago, I developed the habit of saying something forceful and un ambiguous, knowing fully well that trying to make myself understood with milder language simply ain't gonna work. This of course invariably gets people worked up but it rarely fails to make people understand which side of a debate I stand. As you can see - the meta discussion we are having is all about semantics and what I consider useless fluff 1) Was sanguine the right word? 2) Could I have stated my meaning better? 3) What am I going to do to prove that Lustig is wrong or right? 4) Am I really less ignorant? To me this only proves the point about misunderstanding that I made earlier. It is virtually impossible to state opinions in this form of communication without pissing someone off. That holds as true for Lustig as it is for me. Of course I still think the article is full of rhetoric built up around facts. Designed to highlight some things without even mentioning other things. Journalism as she is meant to be. shiv
