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