|
|
|
|
|
|
by otterley
105 days ago
|
|
|
> > Don't characterize your fellow participants. Criticize the idea, not the person. > You deserve criticism for the way you have misdirected away from exploration or consideration, in a non-engaged fashion. It has been a mis-service to the topic, and a mis-service to everyone else's time. Attempting to "double down" was the wrong move. I think we've reached the end of this "discussion." |
|
|
You just don't like my characterizations. And normally I do want to take a higher path! This brings me no joy to use this form. But you haven't given me any grounds to respond on, you never address my points or show that you are at all capable of hearing anything I am saying, so I have to argue and characterize something else instead. Your form is bad, would lose you even the most basic high school debate. I have to work around your distracting words to return us to some relevant point again and again and again.
That's the Brandolini's Law problem. That's the hacker spirit being attacked, that's possibility picked apart by close minded arguments and over-awe-ing projections of negativity and refusal. That's chance, denied.
That's why I keep engaging. We cannot deny all hope, let it be smothered like this. Especially not by such mal-engagement.
I'm surprised a lawyer like you would be so unable to tell such a basic difference between characterizing you vs characterizing your form. And would insist on acting so so sorry for themselves. But you've acted mostly in bad faith so far & haven't actually engaged in discussion, so it fits the pattern.
Agreed that this "discussion" ended, but it ended a long time ago imo. Bad faith engagement from you throughout, this was trash. I caution readers again that what you have to say distracts & takes away rather than helps them think about this all.