Forum Posts Feed
Cataloguing the Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Foolness
Sep 12, 2012 at 08:17 AM
Let us test this accusations of yours shall we?
“Okay. I for one have had enough. Foolness, you have a style that is consistently aggressive and confrontational.”
First part of my post in this thread: (Evidence A we shall call it)
“Recently the issue of who is an outlining expert came up. Since my request for length worthy erudite posts is going nowhere, I’ve decided to switch courses and challenge any outliner expert to test their competency on this issue.”
First paragraph of your reply: (Evidence B)
“You immediately leap to hugely defensive positions using unacceptable language as soon as anybody questions your opinions, regardless of how unacceptably you may have expressed those opinions in the first place.”
Please compare which words are more…how do you put it? “Consistently aggressive”
“I’ve had enough” vs. “Recently the issue of…Since my”
Let us also apply the statement leap to hugely defensive positions using unacceptable language on this part alone.
“Since my request for length worthy erudite posts is going nowhere, I’ve decided to switch courses” - clearly this is a huge defensive position in which I am confronting someone by…what? Switching directions. Oh, how cruel of me!
Where as let us demonstrate your non-huge non-confrontational position shall we?
“You “immeditately”” - Yes, I immediately accused dear ole Alexander of narcissism. It didn’t take a reply from him accusing me first. No, I attack that poor sap who was only trying to be most constructive by telling me: “now you want to challenge the title they themselves have not claimed?” - clearly these are words that came from my mouth and not something he invented out of thin air. How vicious of me to immediately, without even reading his reply, IMMEDIATELY leap to the conclusion that the helpful post is full of bs.
Clearly he was being helpful here too by writing and I quote: “And of course this will be done in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of (to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?
Yes clearly the sentence “As long as you have the time to spend in it (I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job.” is more acceptable than my oh so unproven accusation that he is a narcissist. In fact, hear ye, hear ye: On this day thanks to your post, we shall declare that the words “I don’t” is now acceptable interpretation for I have helped and there I am helpful.
In fact, why yes, I simply wanted to “show up my own desperate anxiety to create some kind of impression” which as you say “it appears more or less any kind of impression will do” on my peers…the… who???
Oh wait, since you were the only who replied, you meant you right?
Yes, I am indeed truly amazed at how amazing I am to makes someone who sees my post as:
“rambling exegeses” - There’s that acceptable language for you folks!
...and yet: Lo and Behold! This person not only deciphered MY IMPRESSION but they have also deciphered MY PEERS. The ones I want to leave an impression behind on. An impression of self-centred, self-seeking behaviour. Clearly this what all people who want peers would want their peers to have an impression of them on.
To my lone peer, I leave you with one last “erudite” lesson:
“Here’s a discipline for you. Avoid deliberately aggressive, confrontational language such as “I’ve had enough” (that should help you cut down your posts, too). Then whatever is actually valuable in your arguments will shine forth like the sun at noon bearing heat down on your exegeses. And for God’s sake get a grip on basic social jumping to conclusions. Provocative is one thing. Sneering and unpleasant bias is entirely another.”
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 12, 2012 at 08:25 AM
MadaboutDana wrote:
>Okay. I for one have had enough. Foolness, you have a style that is consistently
>aggressive and confrontational. You immediately leap to hugely defensive
>positions using unacceptable language as soon as anybody questions your opinions,
>regardless of how unacceptably you may have expressed those opinions in the first
>place. To accuse Alexander - one of the most constructive, helpful contributors to
>this forum - of “narcissism” is simply to show up your own desperate anxiety to create
>some kind of impression (it appears more or less any kind of impression will do) on your
>peers.
>
>Yes, I said peers, not elite outliner experts who are looking down their
>noses at your spectacular erudition. We’re all on the same page here, except
>yourself. You maintain you like well-expressed, pithy arguments that engage others
>in constructive debate. But your own reaction to more or less anything - even when
>you’re trying to put forward some lengthy, “erudite” argument covering everything
>from information theory to psychology, often in response to a perfectly simple
>question - is to attack anybody who replies to your rambling exegeses by accusing them
>of stupidity, or narcissism, or some other kind of self-centred, self-seeking
>behaviour. Amazing!
>
>Here’s a discipline for you. Try confining your posts to no
>more than three paragraphs. Make your cool, erudite points in three (tightly argued)
>paragraphs. Avoid deliberately aggressive, confrontational language (that
>should help you cut down your posts, too). Then whatever is actually valuable in your
>arguments will shine forth like the sun at noon, rather than lying buried like
>diamonds in pig swill. And for God’s sake get a grip on basic social interaction.
>Provocative is one thing. Sneering and unpleasant is entirely
>another.
>
>Cheers,
>Bill
Bill, thank you for your intervention, I completely agree.
Foolness,
I think your own blog (it’s free to set up) would be a much more appropriate medium for your style of contributions (partly even for technical reasons, as the format of this forum is better suited for short and focused posts and exchanges). You could post your URL here, so people who are interested in your style and content can subscribe to it and can have extended and unlimited discussions with you there instead.
I don’t have a problem with provocative posts that stimulate discussion and thinking but yours are starting to border on trolling.
Posted by MadaboutDana
Sep 12, 2012 at 08:26 AM
Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn’t even got started…
Posted by Foolness
Sep 12, 2012 at 08:44 AM
It could not function as a blog (as stated before) because a blog is an authority figure with comments as supplementary figures. Even with the use of linkbacks, it does not work.
The same was also said for a forum. Which is also being demonstrated here (see the most recent madaboutdana’s reply for example)
No, sorry Dr Andus. Much like Alexander who spouse simplicity yet does not even know simplicity, what you are doing here is that you are not able to interpret clear trolling from non-trolling so your credibility as far as this sequence of posts show is suspect:
“Sorry, Foolness, I stopped reading after the third paragraph. But you hadn’t even got started…” - yes this was written after your post but this is an extension of the “bordering on trolling”-level reply of which whose attitude you wholeheartedly supported.
Posted by Foolness
Sep 12, 2012 at 08:52 AM
Btw just to educate everyone. In most forums, an intervention is very doable in a new thread and leads to less…as they say…flame wars.
It is rarely done simply because a forum is not inherently a model for decorum.
I only say this (for the benefit of those who don’t know) because there are many claiming to understand what a forum is about but do not even know what basic topic hijacking is and yet dare claim that x and x is better like x and x. A common effect a forum has on most posters.
Normally I wouldn’t even bother with this statement but as this was/and still is a decent to good forum with posters who are normally helpful (even those who have posted in unhelpful ways) it’s only fitting that the few of you who can be objective deserves to at least read this post while the mud slingers still pretend to be pacifiers.