4 ms·

@jsthrowaway2, your analysis just doesn't take into account how that conversation evolved. We were discussing different issues in multiple subthreads all at the

by bkuhn 14y ago

@jsthrowaway2, your analysis just doesn't take into account how that conversation evolved. We were discussing different issues in multiple subthreads all at the same time. In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. He clarified that, and that subthread ended, and the others with the salient points continued. I challenge you to find any argument that he made, salient or otherwise, that I failed to respond to in that thread.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
> In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. ...in your analysis, which was demonstrably wrong. I, and probably many other people who read his opening shot, (correctly) interpreted it as disagreeing with the way Mark phrased his arguments. The hint is where he says that Mark didn't choose his words carefully, which you interpreted as meaning "I agree and I would have phrased the exact same thing differently!", which is just asinine. You interpreted his remarks the way you wanted to, which wasn't entirely square with reality. Again, I don't care how the conversation evolved, because the guy persisted far longer than I would have (and I give him extreme credit for doing so). The standard argument style seems to be "straw man, straw man, straw man, you and I have nothing to discuss". It is to his credit that he continued and was able to reach an amicable conclusion, but I think the majority of people would roll their eyes and just disengage you at that point. It took him several back-and-forths just to get you to stop badgering him for Mark Shuttleworth's words, for Christ's sake. Let's forget the entire rest of the conversation and let's focus on this: A: FOSS people are McCarthyists. And the idealism impedes forward motion in an indirect way. B: Hey, you know, he's right that the balance between idealism and pragmatism is a bit too far one way. Here's some thoughts about that. Why don't we discuss it? C: I'm sorry to see that you agree that we're McCarthyists. I'd disengage you at C. He persisted, and kudos to him. That's what I'm having an issue with. You already tried building a straw man with me, claiming that I was being disingenuous by editing the conversation, implying that I've introduced falsehoods and manipulated the truth; I did not edit the conversation, but I did selectively quote the portions that I would like to discuss. Selective quotation is not editing.
- bkuhn 14y ago
  In politics, it's very common to use phrasing like "he didn't chose his words wisely, but I agree with his point." as code for: "I'm diplomatically saying I agree with what he did". I see that the fellow didn't mean it that way, and there was probably a language barrier going on too (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that his native language isn't English), and he was furthermore frustrated with the 140 character format. Regarding the latter of which, BTW, I was giving him advice on how he might fix his 140 char problem in another parallel thread. We were having two other parallel threads too, on the "salient points" you mention. Look at the time stamps on the dents if you want to confirm all that. All of it happened together. The Internet is a wonderful thing: you can have efficient conversations in parallel in semi-synchronous time. You're analogy treats the whole thing like I stonewalled him on that one issue while refusing to reply on any other issue. The timestamps and threads just don't support your claim there. I again point out that I didn't resort to name calling and I wasn't disrespectful, and I apologized when I realized that he truly believed he'd already made the statement I was asking him to make. You compare me to @sabdfl above; note that @sabdfl name-called, was disrespectful, and it's not the first time he's done that, either. Meanwhile, I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to always respond to everyone on the Internet who comment at them, and I believe it's completely reasonable to filter away people for all sorts of reasons. It seemed that this fellow might have been doing standing up for @sabdfl's outrageous claims. I discussed that fact with him on on thread to get a sense of whether or not he was, while I was nevertheless still responding to his other points another. I admit I got close at one point to shutting down at one point. But, I still read his next clarification and we came to an understanding. This is an example of people who disagree but are still communicating well and sorting something out. This is an example of useful discourse. I realize you see it as exactly the opposite. I just think you're wrong about that, I'm sorry. I encourage others here to read the whole thread over on identi.ca and decide for themselves which of us is right. I'm about to to go to bed, and I'm sure I won't have time to respond to you further here, as the odds I'll remember to check this site again -- which I don't normally read -- is pretty low. You can email me if you want to discuss it further.
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago

by bkuhn 14y ago

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

> In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. ...in your analysis, which was demonstrably wrong. I, and probably many other people who read his opening shot, (correctly) interpreted it as disagreeing with the way Mark phrased his arguments. The hint is where he says that Mark didn't choose his words carefully, which you interpreted as meaning "I agree and I would have phrased the exact same thing differently!", which is just asinine. You interpreted his remarks the way you wanted to, which wasn't entirely square with reality. Again, I don't care how the conversation evolved, because the guy persisted far longer than I would have (and I give him extreme credit for doing so). The standard argument style seems to be "straw man, straw man, straw man, you and I have nothing to discuss". It is to his credit that he continued and was able to reach an amicable conclusion, but I think the majority of people would roll their eyes and just disengage you at that point. It took him several back-and-forths just to get you to stop badgering him for Mark Shuttleworth's words, for Christ's sake. Let's forget the entire rest of the conversation and let's focus on this: A: FOSS people are McCarthyists. And the idealism impedes forward motion in an indirect way. B: Hey, you know, he's right that the balance between idealism and pragmatism is a bit too far one way. Here's some thoughts about that. Why don't we discuss it? C: I'm sorry to see that you agree that we're McCarthyists. I'd disengage you at C. He persisted, and kudos to him. That's what I'm having an issue with. You already tried building a straw man with me, claiming that I was being disingenuous by editing the conversation, implying that I've introduced falsehoods and manipulated the truth; I did not edit the conversation, but I did selectively quote the portions that I would like to discuss. Selective quotation is not editing.

bkuhn 14y ago
In politics, it's very common to use phrasing like "he didn't chose his words wisely, but I agree with his point." as code for: "I'm diplomatically saying I agree with what he did". I see that the fellow didn't mean it that way, and there was probably a language barrier going on too (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that his native language isn't English), and he was furthermore frustrated with the 140 character format. Regarding the latter of which, BTW, I was giving him advice on how he might fix his 140 char problem in another parallel thread. We were having two other parallel threads too, on the "salient points" you mention. Look at the time stamps on the dents if you want to confirm all that. All of it happened together. The Internet is a wonderful thing: you can have efficient conversations in parallel in semi-synchronous time. You're analogy treats the whole thing like I stonewalled him on that one issue while refusing to reply on any other issue. The timestamps and threads just don't support your claim there. I again point out that I didn't resort to name calling and I wasn't disrespectful, and I apologized when I realized that he truly believed he'd already made the statement I was asking him to make. You compare me to @sabdfl above; note that @sabdfl name-called, was disrespectful, and it's not the first time he's done that, either. Meanwhile, I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to always respond to everyone on the Internet who comment at them, and I believe it's completely reasonable to filter away people for all sorts of reasons. It seemed that this fellow might have been doing standing up for @sabdfl's outrageous claims. I discussed that fact with him on on thread to get a sense of whether or not he was, while I was nevertheless still responding to his other points another. I admit I got close at one point to shutting down at one point. But, I still read his next clarification and we came to an understanding. This is an example of people who disagree but are still communicating well and sorting something out. This is an example of useful discourse. I realize you see it as exactly the opposite. I just think you're wrong about that, I'm sorry. I encourage others here to read the whole thread over on identi.ca and decide for themselves which of us is right. I'm about to to go to bed, and I'm sure I won't have time to respond to you further here, as the odds I'll remember to check this site again -- which I don't normally read -- is pretty low. You can email me if you want to discuss it further.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago