Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:10:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1057 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > I have endeavoured to read cites posted and my reading comprehension is
> > pretty good. If I come away with a different conclusion than other people,
> > it doesn't mean I misunderstood, it could mean we have differing opinions.
> > Not from you, but the 'refutations' I have received for some of my posts in
> > the past are, 'He's Canadian, his opinion does not matter', 'He's trolling,
> > his opinion does not matter', 'He's sounding like so 'n so, his opinion does
> > not matter', 'He believes in God, his opinion does not matter.'
> >
> > I will be the first to admit I'm wrong--this very thread bears that out.
> > That said, When I refute every single 'niggly' point made by someone with
> > what I consider to be a very logical framework and understanding of the
> > issue, and then the entire thread gets deleted and in its place I'm told I'm
> > wrong, with absolutely no points refuted *at all* (and this has happened
> > numerous times), I begin to wonder about the ability to compromise, the
> > ability to see a 'bigger picture', the ability to see things 'outside the
> > box', the ability to debate the points and issues without attacking the
> > person, in others.
>
> I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to
> you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate
> a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that.
>
> What I would question is whether that's happening as much as it appears to.
I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know
how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate
topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments
that look like:
Clearly the snozzblat isn't purple because: a) I've never seen a
purple snozzblat, b) little fairies told my friend that snozzblats can't be
purple, c) purple isn't really a color anyway, and d) to top it all off, that's
not a snozzblat, it's a snazzblot.
Then there are a tremendous number of refernces to TV shows that I've never
heard of (at least I knew the shows Ed cited in his snide note), and analogies
that seem to be deeply insightful to him, but are completely meaningless to me.
When someone (sometimes me) points out one or more of: A) your particular
ignorance on the matter is showing, why not read up and then come back, but
until then, we're going to go on with the conversation, B) I think that it is
more likely that your friend is delusional than that fairies with special
knowledge are in communion with him, C) since Tom, Dick, and Harry all perceive
purple and so do I, and we all seem to think that it means the same thing, I'm
going to stick with my understanding of purple, D) snozzblats and snazzblots
are actually the same thing with some slight variance and I think so because of
x, y, and z, E) I don't get that TV reference, can you please just say what you
mean, or F) I don't know what you mean with that analogy, can you please just
say what you mean, he responds in such a way that I think he is: 1) presenting
an accusation of obtusity (or obtuseness, whatever), 2) ignoring or not
grasping the reason(s) listed in the response, 3) refusing to alter his style
such that conversation can progress, 4) following up with a bunch of analogies
and TV references that seem valueless and confusing, and 5) eventually getting
hostile (which I understand, I do it eventually too).
And I'm sure he has a very different take on this. Above, he writes:
> > When I refute every single 'niggly' point made by someone with
> > what I consider to be a very logical framework and understanding of the
> > issue, and then the entire thread gets deleted and in its place I'm told I'm
> > wrong, with absolutely no points refuted *at all* (and this has happened
> > numerous times),
which suggests that he really does think that he's laying out a logical
framework that's being ignored.
I've been convinced that I'm wrong in this forum several times. I've learned
lots here. I really personally value this interaction and have a very
different perception of the value of this place than that espoused most notably
in recent times by Frank Filz (even though he seems to be participating). But
I don't have the skills to reach Dave K. in a discussion. I just don't. He
says things that are witty and interesting sometimes; so I will sit back and
enjoy them, but by and large, I have backed away from responding to him because
it feels futile. It feels like he's accidentally trolling...that is responding
almost exactly like a troll would, but he seems genuine. Maybe he's just
really good, but that doesn't feel right to me. I think I just don't have the
right skills. I know I don't organize my thoughts well sometimes, particularly
as a thread stretches out, so maybe that's my problem.
Anyway, I thought it would be worth laying out my perceptions. Maybe someone
can help me learn to communicate or think, maybe Dave will benefit from seeing
my perceptions (those that are correct and those that are not -- perceptions
just are), and maybe someone will point out how I'm wrong. Any of that would
have value. Whatever else anyone can say about this, DaveK and I (at the very
least) are miscommunicating rampantly.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) I love purple--is my favourite colour--coincidental that my high school colours happened to be purple and white! :) If you want to get really confused, I am technically (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that. What I would question (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
