It was the effect on you; you are one human - even if you were 1,000,000,000,000 I would still stand by everything I say.
Well, that's admirable. My intent is to never post anything that I later regret, whether this be inaccurate information, a weak joke, an unwarranted criticism, etc. In short, like you, I aim to stand by everything I say and I have been reasonably satisfied with my success in this regard.
I also understand you likely do not understand this philosophy, and you cannot contain your urges to comment on what you believe is nonsense - even though you don't know everything to know what is nonsense.
Two points:
1. It appears that, in regard to at least one aspect of how we post, we have a near identical philosophy.
2. Your comment about what I believe to be nonsense is peculiar. My comment was intended to inform you that your reply to FB was obtuse; that his puzzled reaction to it was one I shared; and one I (implicitly) suspected others might share. I work from the basic assumption that most members wish others to understand what they mean when they post. I think it is courteous to alert members when they may not be achieving that. That was the sole purpose of my post.
You are another example of Post 32: using not-so-subtle sophomoric quips in an attempt to disqualify and dismiss a point or argument - this time, you were unoriginal.
I'm sure I have used a variety of rhetorical devices in many posts and threads, to highlight weaknesses in arguments. (Please note that it is not the same "attempting to disqualify and dismiss a point or argument".) If you reject and condemn this approach then you also reject and condemn Galileo's apocryphal "Nevertheless, it moves", Pauli's "Not even wrong", or Johnson's kicked stone and accompanying "I refute it thus".
However, there was no argument or point to refute, reject, dismiss, disqualify, disprove, discount or otherwise dispose of. There was a simple "O.K.", so simple its meaning was obscure and ambiguous.
You suggest I was unoriginal by quoting yourself. I had hoped that might give you pause, to consider that what you were seeing in others might be something that others were seeing in you; that it might encourage you to review your position. I guess the British affection for irony and mild ridicule just isn't your thing.
I don't ever have reason to respond to your posts, because I know the trajectory of them, and I don't like to seriously converse with people who cant entertain things beyond their own training or schooling.
I don't think I have ever critiqued anything that was beyond my own training or schooling. If you can point to any instances I would find it helpful, since my philosophy is only to post on matters I am grounded in and to make it very clear (implicitly or explicitly) when I am expressing an opinion.
You should understand why in the past I have only given you an "OK", or I say nothing at all to you as well. I am responding now for the same reason outlined in Post 36: to help you understand.
Well, I appreciate your attempt to help me understand. I hope it won't be too much of a disappointment if I tell you that while I recognise your member name I am not conscious of having previously replied to any of your posts. This is not too surprising as I tend to post in response to the content of the post and pay minimal attention to who is posting - with a handful of exceptions.
