Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Rick wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 15:47 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
> > Stephen can send this to Justin, if he wants, because I think Justin has
> > my messages going straight to /dev/null.  --Mike
>
> > I have to wonder again what I'm being accused of here.
>
> I would hazard a guess that the accusation is for "conveniently feigned 
> ignorance". But that's from my perspective.

But you'd be wrong.  Only Justin knows what happened from his perspective 
and why he is saying these things.


> Opinionated and blinded by your own bias? I believe so. Made even worse 
> by your own belief that you're so open-minded.

Would someone who agreed with all of my ideas say such a thing?  I believe 
not.  The reason you think that I am biased is that you don't agree with 
me and on the very points where you disagree you see me as most biased. 
Am I wrong?  You see me as biased against your ideas.  Do you see me as 
biased when I agree with you?  Why not?  How can you tell that I'm the one 
who is biased and that it isn't you?


> > Some people are hypersensitive and overinterpret my statements.  For 
> > example, if I were to say "I don't understand your question."  That 
> > does not mean that doesn't mean anything except for exactly what it 
> > says.  I am not suggesting that there is some deep personal defect in 
> > the writer, just that I did not understand what was written.  Usually, 
> > if you look back at it, you will understand why I didn't get it, but 
> > that's up to you.
>
> And, honestly, if there were any attempt to clarify for the sake of the 
> debate, I'd believe this statement. But, I've seen it entirely too many 
> times to say that your lack of understanding is anything but a willful 
> act on your part when it comes to a subject you disagree with.

No it isn't.  Taking the most recent example where I told Diana that I 
didn't understand her -- that's all it was.  I didn't understand her. 
There were two interpretations of her question.  I could have written a 
longer message explaining both interpretations and gently requesting 
clarification, but I really don't consider that to be worth my effort. 
So I wrote a much shorter message.  If her question implied some 
disagreement, I didn't know that.


> > > It's not his point of view, it's his delivery.
> >
> > I believe that, but I'm surprised that you find it so bothersome. 
> > There was probably some event, if we were to look back at the record of 
> > correspondence, where I said something that really pissed you off a 
> > lot.
>
> Lol, you think there was just one?

Something I said about religion almost certainly sent him over the edge. 
There was a day when he decided to filter my messages.  When did that 
happen?


> interesting threads from a google of "don't understand" + "mike miller" + site:mlug.missouri.edu:
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-03/msg00241.php3
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-01/msg00259.php3

Sorry, are you saying that there was something wrong with what I wrote 
there?  The first message was an article with almost no words from me. 
In the second message I wrote a single line that did not include the 
phrase "don't understand."

Maybe you meant for me to follow the threads that started with those 
messages to find something -- something that you have not bothered to 
explain in any detail.  Following the first message I see a little sniping 
and baiting from you and Cepel.  Looking back at it, the big question in 
my mind is why I waste my time writing to people who would treat me that 
way and who had nothing intelligent to say about a rather nice article on 
an important topic.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion