4 ms·

As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our v

As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time. As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings. I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time. In which case I still don't see the point of bringing it up?! I mean, either you think it is worthwhile to discuss something, then you do, or you don't, then you don't. What's the point of engaging about something and then wasting bandwidth with explanations of why you think it's a waste of bandwidth? > As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings. Now, are we talking about people as in "people out there" or as in you? Because while I can see that different approaches are more useful when trying to reach different people, it seems to me a bit like you are trying to reject arguments on purely formal grounds even when you understand them perfectly well, which ultimately is just evasion and not sincere communication, and I don't see it as my job to overcome that artificial burden. > I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't. So, what is the attitude that you imagine and how is it a problem?
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
  I agree. This conversation is a waste of bandwidth. I did say that it is going to be one. I tip my hat to you and leave this thread.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time. In which case I still don't see the point of bringing it up?! I mean, either you think it is worthwhile to discuss something, then you do, or you don't, then you don't. What's the point of engaging about something and then wasting bandwidth with explanations of why you think it's a waste of bandwidth? > As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings. Now, are we talking about people as in "people out there" or as in you? Because while I can see that different approaches are more useful when trying to reach different people, it seems to me a bit like you are trying to reject arguments on purely formal grounds even when you understand them perfectly well, which ultimately is just evasion and not sincere communication, and I don't see it as my job to overcome that artificial burden. > I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't. So, what is the attitude that you imagine and how is it a problem?

nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
I agree. This conversation is a waste of bandwidth. I did say that it is going to be one. I tip my hat to you and leave this thread.