Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO, 
because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just 
say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Physical violence is not the same as other types of violence and 
insulting doesn't make you bleed or get your teeth out with pain or 
produce any effect similar to it, so it's not the same. Some people just 
deserve to be insulted, because what they do is insulting, but yes, you 
can insult in a civilized way without resorting to classical coursing 
words, which in deed lower the quality of the conversation, actually I 
can say whatever I want, I should not however, but if you go physical 
with me, believe me, insults will be the least of your concerns.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:20, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO,
> because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just
> say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Asking someone to be polite is not the same as being close minded.
And again the fact that your expression is limited comes from the fact 
that you are a guest on a private server. And it is not the content that 
is limited, but merely the ways you can express them. So stop answering 
friendly advise by insults. Be glad you have (had?) so many friends here.

So, don't answer this post, just think about this:
When a group of people independently take the time to send the message 
that the way you communicate is not bringing your points across then 
either the whole world is mad except you, or they might have a point.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 07:40, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the
> first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition
> in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my
> intention is to give you news, to inform NOT REALLY DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time DISCUSSING, [...]

[emphasis added]

There's some contradiction here.

The point is that the first quoted paragraph is how your posts came 
through here. What we're telling you right now is that your posts are 
missing the target audience here, who /do/ like to discuss stuff with 
someone coming through as an open-minded person, but do /not/ like to be 
fed news or information from someone coming through as a zealot evangelist.

Let me emphasize that I'm not calling you a zealot evangelist. I'm 
talking about how you come across, and I'm also oversimplifying and 
exaggerating a tad to better make my point.

In my personal case though, that tad is becoming smaller and smaller 
with every post you've made since I raised the issue. Which again isn't 
to say that you're a bad person - you're a person using ineffective 
means to reach the audience in this newsgroup. And rather than offend 
people openly telling you that they won't listen to you anymore, you 
should step back and rethink your means - at least if your primary 
intention is to get you message across, rather than just feel good 
knowing that you proclaimed it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 08:59, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Stephen wrote:
>> other parts of the English speaking world.
>> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
>> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.
>
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.

Ouch. You're really, really, absolutely, positively losing the very 
moral high ground you're fighting for.

Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/ 
have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate 
how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.


Campaigning for a better world by throwing insults and being stubborn - 
that's like the proverbial fucking for virginity.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 15:53, clipka wrote:
> Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/
> have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate
> how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.

Thank you. I am glad you pointed that out.
It is also a cultural thing considered funny.
Other like sayings from the Glasgow of my youth are:

Do you like hospital food?*

Can your mother sew? Well get her to stitch this. (With hand movements 
of drawing a knife across a face.)**
Not to be taken seriously.
But I fall foul of my own remark about cultural differences. For which I 
apologise.

* I actually said that to an actor when he tried to get me to go on a 
West End, stage (to be the butt of a joke). If I had realised that it 
was his first night in the part I would not have.
[Edit] He was Welsh so knew the context but the lost the plot. He did 
make a good recovery and told the rest of the audience what I had said. 
More power to his elbow.


** Did I hear someone say "Poison Dwarf***"? ;-)

*** German term for Scottish Solders in WWI

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 11:12, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
>
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not,
> you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and
> obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs
> the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

No, it's an argument from experience: Disconnecting yourself from your 
gut feelings is a bad thing to do, because you're disconnecting yourself 
from something that is part of you, and serves a purpose. The right 
thing to do is to accept their existence, and examine what's behind 
them. And that's exactly what I've learned to do.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

In this whole discussion you're coming across as stubborn, which 
contradicts your self-description as rational, skeptical and critical. 
Especially, it shows a lack of self-criticism.

As a side note, I'm /not/ refering to your post to Doc John - that 
doesn't come across as stubborn, but as hot-headed and lacking control 
over your emotions - again not signs of a rational, skeptical and 
critical mind.

> The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy
> and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we
> require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating,
> safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason,
> being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given
> the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are
> emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human
> dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as
> natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst.

Reconsideration? I haven't seen much sign of that in your posts lately. 
This posting in response to mine is the very first sign that such a 
process /may/ be happening - but even here I only see it used as an 
opening move to stubbornness.


> And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were
> you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything,

You're missing my point again.

This "everything is connected to everything" is a hollow phrase, easy to 
use but difficult to explain and grasp to a point that someone can 
really and legitimately say, "yes, it is so - been there, seen it at 
work often enough to know it's not just some hollow phrase".

> Science
> indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on
> its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us
> somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I
> don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says
> according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy
> that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in
> theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift
> their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a
> jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.

Read this paragraph of yours again - you're referring to "this popular 
PhD" and "Carl Sagan", rather than arguing from own experience. You've 
chosen to believe it because people you assign authority to say so.


> That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my
> post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I
> made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary,
> so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is
> exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You
> should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an
> educated opinion.

Sometimes however it is a good thing to express such an instinctive 
warning to others - expressly noting that it is an instinct and not 
fully examined yet - even before having "gone beyond" it.

In some cases - as in this - you'll only be able to clearly grasp what 
this gut feeling is all about based on additional evidence, which comes 
in after you've expresed the instinctive warning.


> I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly
> accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and
> not tending to be unnecessarily long.

Okay, let me get this straight:

(1) You "make sure" - how do you do that? Do you just verify that people 
you assign authority to say so, or do you actually follow their thoughts 
and toy with them /yourself/? (*)

(2) You make sure they are "probably correct"? So you can't say for 
sure, and instead have to rely on... what? A mathematical confidence 
level? Or a gut feeling? Whatever the case, why don't you, when posting 
those links, let us know how much confidence you do have in it?

(3) You'd gladly accept a discussion about, as long as it's not "tending 
to be unnecessarily long"? This /shouts/ at me "I don't really want to 
be bothered with details that might pose the risk of me having to change 
my mind, but I won't admit this so I throw in the word 'unnecessarily' 
to hide behind, in case someone jumps at this sentence".


> I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway,
> everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to
> verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but
> anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for
> its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

So... you have "no idea", but consider them "probably true, or maybe 
true", because "everything indicates so"?

I suspect that you deem it "probably true" because "nothing indicates 
otherwise" - in other words, because you have a bias to believe it.


> If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is
> irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the
> goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its
> validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be
> an expert.

As I said, the messenger, too, is responsible for checking the content 
for legitimacy, not just the recipient.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from 
> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?

I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.

Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought 
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but 
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the 
> point

It's arguably hard to take someone seriously who has in the past shown
belief in things like ghosts, deities, the supernatural, possibly in
aliens, and who has called skeptics "theists, Science being your God",
and who is now making several posts with nothing more than one link
each, and with provocative titles, giving a strong vibe of a conspiracy
theorist.

It doesn't help matters when you then start insulting people and using
swearwords, as well as using the "argumentative fallacy card" by throwing
names of completely random fallacies in situations where they don't fit
at all, seemingly to make yourself sound more intellectual and learned
(but ultimately achieving the exact opposite).

If you want to discuss about a certain topic, don't just make a post
with nothing but an URL. Explain your point, describe the topic, use
the URL as a reference, not as the main content. When writing, avoid
sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and avoid insulting people
simply because they disagree with you or dismiss you for behaving like
a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
relevant.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I'll guarantee that you didn't expect me to write again in this thread.
Just a couple of points:

On 24/09/14 10:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
> 
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there

An oxymoron is a language construct with the purpose of emphasis - e.g.
'deeply superficial' or 'sadly laughable'. It is nothing to do with the
correctness or otherwise of an argument.

> which begs the question

'To beg the question' is to use the assumption of correctness of an
argument in order to prove that argument. In other words, circular
reasoning.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

... but failed to apologise to the person you insulted.

Now, just a little point that's worth remembering: many of us who post
on this newsfroup are possibly older than you (I am 64, TdeG is 67 etc
etc) and age implies experience which in turn implies wisdom. If you
don't want to listen to me then at least take advice from the others.

John

PS I quote a piece from a memo sent by one of my cow-orkers to someone
who was determined to get at me:
'I am but an egg and my knowledge of such matters is as far below yours
as mine is above my colleagues'. But, whatever you do, don't f*ck with
the Doctor.'
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 23:30, Doctor John wrote:
> I am but an egg

Stranger in a strange land.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/14 23:53, Stephen wrote:
> 
> Stranger in a strange land.
> 

Yay, Heinlein :-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
> On 24/09/14 23:53, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Stranger in a strange land.
>>
>
> Yay, Heinlein :-)
>

And Mike really did make good soup. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.
>

Only, Carl Sagan got it wrong. The Earth is not at war with itself. The 
/Earth/ doesn't give a damn about the survival of /humans/ because that 
is what Carl Sagan implies in reality. It does what it has done for 
billions of years: evolve through constantly changing conditions, 
sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes teeming with life, sometimes 
almost barren. If /one/ species (humans) suddenly (geologically 
speaking) make conditions unacceptable for them, that species just dies 
out and Earth goes on with business-as-usual. /That/ is the reality. 
What Carl Sagan said concerns Carl Sagan, and his fellow human beings.

Which does not mean we should do nothing, but we should not attribute 
human 'emotions' to a natural system.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from
>> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?
>
> I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
>
> Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?
>
No, that's what you think, I don't think you understand the comcept neither.

Post a reply to this message

No, you're wrong and many people that write here write contradictions, 
fallacies, arguments from ignorance and when I point them out and demand 
mutual respect, I'm stubborn and insulting. I'm not the one that started 
with the threats, and I know what he meant and I wrote to him, that in 
person that would be a lot harder than he thinks, you don't want me 
pissed of on you, I'll probably do more damage than most people think is 
needed to be made.

You don't respect me, I'll tolerate little that attitude before I 
disrespect back, I don't care if that doesn't help make a better World, 
don't disrespect me, or face consequences, simple.

Post a reply to this message

I mean, depending on the type of disrespect, it it is physical I'll 
return in kind, and so on.

Post a reply to this message

If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your 
fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when 
you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should 
have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/14 10:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

Of course we know where you're posting from. Just look at the headers in
your post and do a reverse DNS look-up.

In your header is NNTP-Posting-Host: 190.186.125.5 and a quick use of
the host command gives:
5.125.186.190.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
dynamic-ip-adsl-190.186.125.5.cotas.com.bo.
So you are posting from Bolivia. Simples

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Discuss if the case arrived on my posts, but mostly inform and I would 
discuss on other people's post of course, so if you don't jump to 
conclusions as you did, you can easily see that this is a possibility.

I'm not missing the target, that's what you think, the target is people 
that can read, write and think.

Oversimplifying and exaggerating are too ways to miss grossly to hit the 
point with precision, and therefore not efficient, efficiency what 
Nature tell us to be if possible 100% of the time, the path of least 
resistance and more direct interaction, we can see this on the evolved 
creatures, how they solved issues that engineers and scientists take as 
a lessons, so we should try for this and not the opposite, the best 
highlight is to be exact, at least to target intelligent people, IMO. As 
Einstein said: "explain simple, not simpler than that", or something 
similar.

I understand your points, you're simply wrong or misguided as I have 
pointed out if any. I'm using reason, and IMO good enough to explain my 
points in a clear, simple, with mutual respect and reasonable way, I 
haven't seen an indication by anyone of the contrary except for the 
insult which I reconsidered, and there will be closed-minded people that 
are not willing to accept that their "perfect little corner of the 
World" isn't such, so I'm not going to waste time in reaching 
unreasonable people, I made a mistake in giving Doctor John too much 
attention.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

You are quite right and I apologise, unreservedly.
It was said in haste.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for 
example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and 
methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were 
tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which 
is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad 
about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.

Post a reply to this message

BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning, 
not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I 
give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.

Post a reply to this message

And I accept your apology the same way.

Post a reply to this message

So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.

FYI The English language is unforgiving with things like that. I believe 
French is a more diplomatic language.
But we are using English here. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for
> example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and
> methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were
> tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which
> is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad
> about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.

Well the problem with most religions is that they rely on Faith which is 
outside of science. So no one can win.
You can prove something forever but if the other person believes (for no 
other reason that he believes) you will not be believed. And your proof 
dismissed.
Also the established religions have a lot of wealth and power from long 
ago. They are strong.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:51, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> And I accept your apology the same way.

We are friends?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 12:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
>> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
>> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.
>

But that is assuming your reasoning is true. There may be several 
solutions or your reasoning might be false. In that sense another 
opinion is never 'stupid'.

> FYI The English language is unforgiving with things like that. I believe
> French is a more diplomatic language.
> But we are using English here. :-)
>

True indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

What part of "don't answer this post" did you not understand?

On 25-9-2014 11:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for
> example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and
> methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were
> tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which
> is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad
> about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 11:39, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds,

Ouch.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 13:14, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-9-2014 12:02, Stephen wrote:
>> On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
>>> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
>>> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.
>>
>
> But that is assuming your reasoning is true. There may be several
> solutions or your reasoning might be false. In that sense another
> opinion is never 'stupid'.

... plus, labeling an opinion as "stupid" is usually taken to imply that 
only "stupid" people can be of that opinion.

If it's "probably not ovious" why an opinion is "stupid", then how can 
it be "stupid" in that sense?

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 11:58, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.

How about a deal - Doc reads /your/ post again and uses reason on it, 
while you read /our/ posts again, use reason on them, and post something 
in response other than self-justification - like, say, let us know 
whether you see and accept any grain of truth in our criticism.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 11:33, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Discuss if the case arrived on my posts, but mostly inform and I would
> discuss on other people's post of course, so if you don't jump to
> conclusions as you did, you can easily see that this is a possibility.
>
> I'm not missing the target, that's what you think, the target is people
> that can read, write and think.

Well, you /are/ obviously missing the target audience if a number of 
people agree with my posting that started it all, that your way of 
addressing this newsgroup comes across as a bit off, or even that 
they've started to ignore your postings entirely, while there is none - 
zero, nada - who speaks up to say "I like the way you do it, please 
continue and don't let clipka's posting distract you".

Then of course, I might be mistaken in my presumption that your target 
audience is the readers if povray.off-topic, and that you just happen to 
be posting here erroneously...

> I understand your points, you're simply wrong or misguided as I have
> pointed out if any.

Then you're /not/ getting my point. Because my primary point is not how 
you are, what your intentions are, what you're trying to communicate - 
but just plainly how you come across, and why that doesn't further your 
goal of communicating some message.

> so I'm not going to waste time in reaching
> unreasonable people,

What you're probably failing to take into account is that even 
reasonable people have emotions, gut feelings et cetera, and as you 
pointed out in some other post yourself, the world would be an utterly 
cold, overly rational place if that wasn't the case. If you go straight 
against these emotional aspects of your audience, you're missing them - 
often entirely.

What I originally did was point out that, in my case, that's exactly 
what's happening with your posts - not to judge you, but to offer 
feedback so that you can adapt your style of communication to this 
problem. (I later also went on to rationally examine that non-rational 
aspect of mine that you brushed up against, only to find out that it 
warned me of a real issue, which again I communicated to you not for the 
sake of judgement.)

What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same, 
furthering the point that you should do things differently.

What you did then - and are doing still - was defend your posting style, 
appealing to our rational side to please just entirely ignore (and 
thereby betray) our emotional aspects (rather than even allow them to be 
expressed, which is a prerequisite for examining them rationally).

Everyone's emotional aspects form a part of that person, and usually 
they do have /some/ point and are therefore valid in themselves, and 
expecting people to entirely ignore them when trying to address them is 
just naive.


So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/ 
still missing my point.

I'm not saying you /must/ adapt your comms style, but then you have to 
live with the consequences - such as people telling you that you're 
losing them, or people starting to outright ignore you. (Maybe even 
people requesting you to be banned from the newsgroup if you really step 
onto people's emotional toes with force.)


I think I've said 'nuff now. I've been trying to make you aware of how 
you're busy losing people you claim to try to address, but I'm growing 
tired of you not having any of it. Apparently I'm missing my target 
audience, too - so as I don't have a clue how to otherwise change my 
comms style to be more efficient, I'll resort to a radical change: I'll 
simply stop posting on this issue.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/14 19:24, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.09.2014 11:58, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>> So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.
> 
> How about a deal - Doc reads /your/ post again and uses reason on it,
> while you read /our/ posts again, use reason on them, and post something
> in response other than self-justification - like, say, let us know
> whether you see and accept any grain of truth in our criticism.
> 

I've re-read Saul's posts several times and there is nothing in them
that persuades me to agree with his point of view. He implies that his
view is 'scientific' - well, not in any sense that I understand. He also
appears to be sailing close to the infamous 'conspiracy theory' of
government and the military industrial complex.
His ranty (is that a word?) style of communicating his views also does
little to persuade me that he might have a point.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from
> >> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?
> >
> > I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
> >
> > Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?
> >
> No, that's what you think, I don't think you understand the comcept neither.

So please explain what you think it means.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Why you didn't start if you obviously think you know better?

Post a reply to this message

And why I should do as you say? As long as I want and can I will do as I 
see fit.

Post a reply to this message

OK I tried, you're the one is a stubborn hot-headed one and I'm not 
going to explain again in another way so you can understand, what you 
simply don't want to.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 13:50, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> And why I should do as you say? As long as I want and can I will do as I
> see fit.

plonk


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Why you didn't start if you obviously think you know better?

Start what? And you avoiding the question I presented you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

No I didn't as you demonstrated to be unreasonable enough

I stand corrected on your points, but still shallow analysis of my words.

By oxymoron I meant contradiction and by 'begging the question' leads me 
to ask...

I already wrote I won't apologize because you deserve it, but I thought 
about it and I think 'asshole' it's too strong for your indifference to 
my message, so I apologize.

I'm 41 and I take advice when I see that the person reasons along of the 
subject and doesn't avoid stray around trying to give himself the reason 
because he says so.

What's the purpose of the PS? that I don't fuck with you? you disguised 
in the form of a "quote"? and you expect me to apologize? hmm 
interesting, well you behavior is rude enough to merit a equal response, 
so why don't you take this advice and examine the way you address to people?

Post a reply to this message

Wrong, by Earth it's understood that it's the ecologic system we live 
in, of course Earth will still be here until the Sun goes supernova.

Post a reply to this message

no, you are.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> no, you are.

I'm what? You are not making any sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Again you fail to analyze as you have in many of my posts:

You generalize, saying/writing something stupid doesn't mean necessarily 
that you're stupid, but mistaken, natural perpetual human error, and 
this is a given and basic knowledge, you should know it and avoid such 
generalizations.

Same as Science does, you analyze and you discover the non-obvious whatever.

Post a reply to this message

That doesn't imply necessarily that I'm correct, but have a reasoned 
and/or educated opinion that probably is true, of course eliminating as 
much as possible the other possibilities, if the goal is to search for a 
single best answer and not multiples.

Post a reply to this message

A reasonable construct will indicate the difference, if you can't tell 
the difference that's simple lack of understanding, it's not the same to 
say/write: you're saying something stupid than you're stupid.

Post a reply to this message

I don't expect people like you ever understand it, you're closed-minded 
enough, so it's OK.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-9-2014 14:35, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Wrong, by Earth it's understood that it's the ecologic system we live
> in, of course Earth will still be here until the Sun goes supernova.

That does not infirm what I wrote.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Well, you /are/ obviously missing the target audience if a number of
> people agree with my posting that started it all, that your way of
> addressing this newsgroup comes across as a bit off, or even that
> they've started to ignore your postings entirely, while there is none -
> zero, nada - who speaks up to say "I like the way you do it, please
> continue and don't let clipka's posting distract you".
>
> Then of course, I might be mistaken in my presumption that your target
> audience is the readers if povray.off-topic, and that you just happen to
> be posting here erroneously...

It's not a popularity contest, it's reasoning, again you missed the 
point, and yes, you're wrong, because I wrote what the requirements were 
and for the random kind of posts on ot.pr.org.

> Then you're /not/ getting my point. Because my primary point is not how
> you are, what your intentions are, what you're trying to communicate -
> but just plainly how you come across, and why that doesn't further your
> goal of communicating some message.

You again repeat yourself for the 4th time, I explained this already, I 
get your point, you don't get mines and digress to your subjects.

> What you're probably failing to take into account is that even
> reasonable people have emotions, gut feelings et cetera, and as you
> pointed out in some other post yourself, the world would be an utterly
> cold, overly rational place if that wasn't the case. If you go straight
> against these emotional aspects of your audience, you're missing them -
> often entirely.

I never asked to discard emotional information, you assumed that, and 
assuming is generally mistaking, there your error. You didn't analyzed 
yous and just having a general notion of them. Emotional info. makes you 
smarter since they're the result of subconscious reasoning or called 
"gut" because sometimes creates a little bit and anxiety and produce a 
little of excess gastric juice and creating gases and bit of annoyance 
on the intestine that will be felt in the 'gut', but that's a chemical 
response of a similar anxiety-provoking situation from the past, but 
necessarily equal, therefore the need to analyze it, women tend to do 
this way better and faster than men, evolutionary trait, I learned this 
about them long ago and confirmed over the years, and that makes them 
more understanding, so you were not only wrong but very wrong to assume 
this of me.

> What I originally did was point out that, in my case, that's exactly
> what's happening with your posts - not to judge you, but to offer
> feedback so that you can adapt your style of communication to this
> problem. (I later also went on to rationally examine that non-rational
> aspect of mine that you brushed up against, only to find out that it
> warned me of a real issue, which again I communicated to you not for the
> sake of judgement.)

And I took it that way, except for 1 post which was digressed from the 
points and you tend to explain too long.

> What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same,
> furthering the point that you should do things differently.

somewhat, yes.

> What you did then - and are doing still - was defend your posting style,
> appealing to our rational side to please just entirely ignore (and
> thereby betray) our emotional aspects (rather than even allow them to be
> expressed, which is a prerequisite for examining them rationally).

No, wrong assessment, that's what people here thinks I'm doing, I'm 
calling BS where I see it and addressing with reason when I see it too, 
that you can see this and pinpoint my mistake and just write generally: 
you try to appear reasonable, you rant, etc, it's just lack of analysis, 
I'm being reasonable and try to write short, but it's not always possible.

> Everyone's emotional aspects form a part of that person, and usually
> they do have /some/ point and are therefore valid in themselves, and
> expecting people to entirely ignore them when trying to address them is
> just naive.

When I see unreasonable attitudes, I won't call to reason, not here, 
because here you should be reasonable to communicate.

> So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/
> still missing my point.

Or maybe I'm not the problem.

> I'm not saying you /must/ adapt your comms style,  but then you have to
> live with the consequences - such as people telling you that you're
> losing them, or people starting to outright ignore you. (Maybe even
> people requesting you to be banned from the newsgroup if you really step
> onto people's emotional toes with force.)

This is the second time you contradict yourself, yes you're implying I 
must, it's a form of persuasive emotional coercion. I try to improve but 
I don't care if the World calls my reasoning BS, truth and the truth of 
my reasoning will say, I'm not if I'm in the truth of things.

> I think I've said 'nuff now. I've been trying to make you aware of how
> you're busy losing people you claim to try to address, but I'm growing
> tired of you not having any of it. Apparently I'm missing my target
> audience, too - so as I don't have a clue how to otherwise change my
> comms style to be more efficient, I'll resort to a radical change: I'll
> simply stop posting on this issue.

I'm getting tired to be corrected that has as many and maybe more cooms 
issues than me, and reasoning and simple explanation or generally all 
you need to comms efficiently.

Post a reply to this message