Holmes Crashing

It's a bad thing only if it is pretentious. If the object of the prose style is to be precise, then it's a very good thing. If the object is to impress through circumlocution and the use of exotic terms (as often in the humanities), it's a very bad form of writing.Your writing is not pretentious.

Hope that answers your question. He should be censured for just poisoning the well and offering no substance in that post. It looked to me like you totally wasted his argument, and in his pride he could answer nothing back but lobby intense personal attacks. Keep in mind it's not that I agree with your argument and stance so I am not defending you out of partisanship here.Crash is my least favorite poster next to CharlesKnight, and have never found to have any fruitful dialogue with them at all; nor have I ever felt they once answered my points, taking the time to understand the perspective and engage it.That's my honest opinion.This message has been edited by randman, 08-21-2005 02:16 PM

Could you show me in which post that occured?

Both Holmes and crashfrog are on my short list of posters I always read, regardless of the topic. I hope they find a mutually amicable detente.

I feel the same way.

dittoI find I agree with both of them often...Damn, is that even possible?

I'm sort of surprised to see you supporting me. In any case, please do not respond to Crash's request for evidence, and refrain from further criticism of others in this thread. I want this to be focused practical criticism of my posts, so I can better understand the utility of posting vs spectating.As it is I generally like Crash and have 0 complaints with CK, so whether they work for you or not is a side issue. Given that we have been on opposite ends of arguments I am definitely interested in whether you feel my responses have been coherent and useful to you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Although it is in part recreational, it is not completely so for me. I found this site while preparing a documentary on... well its complicated, but lets say it developed into evolutionary theory and as a part of that intelligent design.I found the threads informative, as well as the debate style to be higher than elsewhere. I began posting to try and generate information from the ID camp, but then felt that I had something to add (as well as work out my writing skills in the process).Thus I take this sort of seriously in the spreading of real information. Yeah its informal and can be fun or funny, but most of the subjects are real and the info serious.If I wanted to just have fun, then I can spectate, or do something else altogether. To post I want to be useful.It does appear there are enough people who don't feel as you do to make it worth my while to continue posting. I do accept your apology for overstating, or appearing to overstate, public opinion of my posts' utility.If you feel as you do about my posts, then I suggest we should return to a moratorium on replies. If you feel the need to comment on something you believe I have said then post a general reply paraphrasing me. I'll do the same for you. That way if we are missing the mark... which we both seem to feel about each other... then there's no harm done.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"precision"Yes, that ws the ward.It explains why i was being taught in its stead, "superfluidity of suffiency".Holmes is fre to handling me waking papers if he walks it off it private. The image remains.