Agesilaos wrote:
That you will never see why the two other people got so annoyed is quite clear; trying to give you a taste of your own medicine was a poor tactic and ultimately harmed the thread, but you don't get to preface every reply with 'No this is all wrong...' without getting people's backs up, no matter how clever you think you are, the Hemingway Convention applies here, 'Don't tell 'em, show 'em.'
For most people, an assertion in a debate that another viewpoint is wrong would not be a problem, or lead to annoyance – especially when followed by good reasons for the poster to make that assertion, and references. And of course, if you believe an assertion of mine is wrong you can always refute it, with supporting evidence.I don’t preface every reply with “No this is all wrong”. From memory I have only once suggested an entire post of yours was ‘all wrong’. I frequently say that a particular assertion is ‘wrong’, or ‘incorrect’ or ‘mistaken’, and then state why I say this, with supporting evidence from sources. That is milder by far than calling another’s post ‘guff’, ‘bunk’ or ‘b******t’ as you have done mine. Anyone would find your aggressive sort of language annoying! Lucky for me I don’t stoop to that, or heaven knows the abuse I’d have received in return! And why is it that when Paralus says you are wrong, as he has done on more than one occasion, you don’t get equally annoyed and abuse him ?
At least I cheerfully admit when I am wrong or mistaken, and I believe everyone should.
“Dose of your own medicine”? I never, EVER sneer at another’s posts, or resort to profanities, like some sort of “shock jock” on the radio, or call someone names, or personally attack them, or resort to ‘flaming’.
You think that asserting someone is wrong or mistaken justifies calling them epithets like ‘liar’ (repeatedly), ‘dim-witted’, ‘fantasist’, ’pretender’ and sundry other names I’ve been subjected to, that I can’t recall at present ? I will make so bold as to disagree!
At least this thread seems to have kick started the main one, and please note, the 'blood-sucking lawyer' was not intended seriously, most of my legal friends prefer entirely different fluids. As to
Xenophon, I am not the sort to stoop to insults!
You drove me to It...but now the wind is from the West I can again tell a hawk from a handsaw.
I did not take ‘blood sucking lawyer’ seriously, or take offence, as is obvious from my reply – and I too prefer more pleasant fluids.
“Drove” you to it ? That is no excuse. You, and only you, are responsible for what you post. If you are angered by what is posted, wait until you calm down before rushing to the keyboard, and consider that what you post on the internet is there forever.
You said you were going to put forward some proposals to avoid heated posts – but so far nothing, and you continue as before.
As Judge Roger “The Mad Bull” Bullingham might have put it :
“Criminal, you stand condemned by your own words! “
In the absence of proposals by you, perhaps we could adopt my guideline of attacking the argument put, not the person, or as I said a number of times, most recently on Jan 21 :
“I try, not always successfully, to avoid giving offence, and don't resort to name-calling or profanities for example, no matter how frustrated I may get - for that is the nature of on-line exchanges, as opposed to a lively discussion over a pint of black, or a glass of red.”
That doesn't seem a bad starting point.