On 7 Aug 2011, at 10:04, Biju Chacko wrote: > Frankly, I don't particularly mind Shiv's posts. From where I sit, he's only > trolling about half the time. The rest of the time he's merely expressing his > views. I may not agree with him, but so what? > > In any case, what's interesting about always talking to people who agree with > you? I kinda miss Arsalan Zaidi, for those of you who remember. > > On the other hand, I rather object to hidden agendas, sock puppets and > similar weirdness. > > - > > I thought this thread was declared closed, but if it is open, let me just pop up to say that I basically agree with Biju.
I don't always agree with Shiv, but I like reading his posts and appreciate his perspective. Although I disagree with most of Shiv's politics, I do agree with him that in certain circles, it is very hard to have a reasonable discussion about "right wing" issues without being dismissed as a loon. I don't know anything about this weirdness surrounding Anand and the private emails, but I have known Shiv online for a very long time and have had no difficulty in "assuming goodwill" about his posts. Having said that, Shiv, I do think that your posting style makes it difficult for people to engage with you. It feels like all your replies are just questions back to the original poster - you clearly have a viewpoint (and it isn't that hard to figure out from your questions) but you rarely come out and say it. It almost feels like the way you'd teach a law school class using the Socratic method. But it's not the best way to engage with someone online. I would appreciate it if you could just come right out and say what you think and why you disagree (if you do) with whoever you are responding to. Badri
