4 ms·
> Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that p
by philh 10y ago
> Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant?
You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming.
I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity.
> I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that).
I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed.
- acqq 10y agoObsessed with guns too much and with drawing false conclusions? To the point of the cognitive dissonance? Like, how dare I linking to the page "on guns" (as you name it) without explaining to you that it's not something you should be "insulted" about! The last sentence in the post above, moreover, has certain similarities with one of the first statements on the page that initiated your response ("I am in fact...") Funny. Note how you ascribed to me the motivations I haven't had and now you write: "There's a big difference between analysing the meaning of some text (which is necessary for communication) and guessing at someone's motives." You actually did the later, accusing me as if I wrote "he supports gun rights" which I absolutely never wrote. Also "It's hiding behind some ambiguity and hinting, but I think the broad intent is quite clear." Apparently it wasn't clear to you, that much you were able to admit. But you continue, guns, guns. It's your invention, not my subject. My subject was the personality traits, all the time.