Day, Wally opined: "No real "learning" takes place in the midst of bickering."
See:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bickering
Not the same thing as disagreeing with or having a different position than someone else, otherwise your reply was "bickering", something you are "bickering" against, and would bring up the word hypocrite.
That was the short concise reply - stop reading here if all you want is "short" and "concise".
Day, Wally bickered:
> Some dude who says he's a "scholar" posted
>
>
>> What would be lost and what would be gained if one had to both never be
>> disagreeable and always carefully post in a way that the
>> misunderstandings with everyone with their own personal assumptions
>> would be minimized? Someone is always going to disagree with you
>> regardless, so it's better to say what you mean and mean what you say
>> than to "qualify" your speech to the lowest common denominator. Most of
>> the personal learning IMO occurs when people who disagree make their
>> cases, either politically correctly or not.
>>
>
> Wow. Way to "prove" and emphasize your own point. Good job
>
Why thank your for your well communicated clear and concise complement.
<grin>
>
>> Someone is always going to disagree with you
>> regardless, so it's better to say what you mean and mean what you say
>> than to "qualify" your speech to the lowest common denominator.
>
> Why not try to "qualify" your speech to the *highest* common denominator? Impulsively hitting reply, copying an entire thread, without properly thinking about and formatting your response - is actually playing to the lowest common denominator.
>
And what would "highest denominator" be, the people who "might" disagree
with me? The people who "might" agree with me? The people who don't
give a hoot? The people who are upset at the spelling or grammar? The
people think replies should be top posted, bottom posted, or
interspersed, as short as possible, highly edited because they read a
certain way, have particular political leanings, religious biases, have
particular paleo biases (raw only) and or variants, etc?
>
>> Most of
>> the personal learning IMO occurs when people who disagree make their
>> cases, either politically correctly or not.
>>
>
> No real "learning" takes place in the midst of bickering.
>
Good point.
See:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bickering
Not the same thing as disagreeing with or having a different position than someone else, otherwise your reply was "bickering", something you are "bickering" against, and would bring up the word hypocrite.
>
>> I disagree 100%.
>>
>
> You have a perfect right to do so.
>
>
>> I disagree 100%. If my reply doesn't happen to need to be longer, but I
>> wish to be short and too the point, then I'll do that every time. I may
>> or may not edit posts to make them shorter. People who read posts need
>> to manage their reading, I'm not going to do it. I choose what I wish
>> to send and they choose what they wish to read. If one "chooses" to
>> read posts for example with a slow or small device, then they have to
>> accept the limits of their choice. I'm not necessarily going to manage
>> my writing to the worst level of network connectivity or the lower
>> quality email programs. If someone chooses to read in digest form, they
>> have to accept the limits of their choice.
>>
>
> The reason for a forum like this is to ask questions and communicate information with other members. It *is* the responsibility of the author of the post to be as clear and concise as possible.
The author has NO such "responsibility", especially to make hecklers
"happy". He has neither a responsibility to be clear or concise,
particular to any specific vocal group of readers. The Author "MAY"
wish to be clear, or concise, or verbose, or make allusions, etc as the
author sees fit - author's choice. Authors have no requirement to
target ALL readers regardless of their bias or language/posting ability,
nor do authors have a responsibility to manage their speech to the
particular eclectic biases of particular readers who always exist in
every form preaching that their way of posting/editing posts is the only
"correct" way.
> This is not a sports board where smack, bantering, and stupid opinions rule.
If that's what you believe, then I recommend you walk the walk and talk
the talk. A "forum" that is moderated to prevent ALL disagreement is
one no one post to and one no one learns from. Disagreement has a
different definition than "bickering", FYI.
> This is an educational support forum. Disagreements are expected to be backed up with resources and references rather than name calling and compulsive posting.
>
Your introductory line belies your assertion as well as the title you
gave your post. Bickering was your goal.
> Sure, communication is a two way street. But, it is not my responsibilibty to "get" your point by having to read between the lines and/or interpreting/inferring what you mean.
Exactly. You get to decide what you want out of what you read.
> *You* need to format your message so that I, the reader, do not misunderstand or misinterpret what you say.
I'm not crazy enough to pretend I or you can do the impossible. You can
move the basket to 100 yards up in the air and try to get a basket.
I will post my message however I want to, be it short, long, concise,
verbose, top posted, bottom posted, edited for cell phone reading or
readers still using 300 baud modem AND I get to target my speech to the
readers I'm interesting in and in any method I desire, which may or many
not be you even if you get all my posts. I expect you can figure out
how to use your email reader's filtering feature or as we used to call
it 20 years ago, a "kill file". People claiming the "correct" way of
posting have existed for all of those 20 years and the "correct" way
apparently is very diverse.
You edit your posts as you see fit including adding all the "bunch o'
crap" you want, you have my permission.
Steve
|
