3 ms·

Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up generally considered a dirty rhetorical trick, particularly when done in a distasteful way like you

Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up generally considered a dirty rhetorical trick, particularly when done in a distasteful way like you did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis.

simoncion 11y ago
> Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up... I pointed to and accounted for everything in my original comment and the follow-on comment. When did I deny that anything I brought up in my original topic should be brought up? That's not what's going on here. You appear to be claiming that -despite my repeated assertions to the contrary- I compared poor corporate governance to spousal abuse in my original comment. I didn't. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Edit: I remembered an old comment that I wrote a while back that explains how I feel about writing and how I try to structure my writing. [0] Maybe this might make things clearer for you. To save you a click, I'll quote it inline: "The world would be a far better place if fewer people would read between the lines of a given statement, and more people would make a habit of carefully parsing statements that others make. When one writes words for general consumption, it's oh so tiresome to front-load one's writing with a bevy of disclaimers and preemptive clarifications. You will inevitably fail to include one clause or another, causing someone, somewhere to successfully misunderstand your words. It's better to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you are able, and -when writing for capable adults- trust that your audience is capable adults who know how to read what has been written and know not to infer meaning in inappropriate places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737

simoncion 11y ago

> Bringing up a subject while denying it should be brought up... I pointed to and accounted for everything in my original comment and the follow-on comment. When did I deny that anything I brought up in my original topic should be brought up? That's not what's going on here. You appear to be claiming that -despite my repeated assertions to the contrary- I compared poor corporate governance to spousal abuse in my original comment. I didn't. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you. Edit: I remembered an old comment that I wrote a while back that explains how I feel about writing and how I try to structure my writing. [0] Maybe this might make things clearer for you. To save you a click, I'll quote it inline: "The world would be a far better place if fewer people would read between the lines of a given statement, and more people would make a habit of carefully parsing statements that others make. When one writes words for general consumption, it's oh so tiresome to front-load one's writing with a bevy of disclaimers and preemptive clarifications. You will inevitably fail to include one clause or another, causing someone, somewhere to successfully misunderstand your words. It's better to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you are able, and -when writing for capable adults- trust that your audience is capable adults who know how to read what has been written and know not to infer meaning in inappropriate places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10445737