What the H - Holmes is back!

When people misrepresent others, and I notice, then I point it out. Not everybody does it. Sometimes it's by genuine accident.Holmes is the only one here who does it so regularly.I'm still wondering, Jon, when you're going to contribute to debate in a substantial way. Is nipping around my heels the sole contribution you're capable of?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I agree. It was very witty. Crash and a few others are great with sarcasm and the zappy zinger. I actually find them funny, even when dead wrong.But here's the problem... snappy insults are not useful communication. In fact it's contrary to good communication.Taking this specific zinger as an example... The claim of misrepresentation is an easy one to make, especially to get out of a debate one is losing. It's like "Abracadabra" now I am justified in NOT discussing the issue and turn it on YOU instead. It's a trick. That is not to say such claims are always false, but if it is true then the zinger isn't going to add anything.Let's say posters A and B are in debate, and B responds to a point which A claims is not their position. There are a few possibilities...1) B honestly misread A's post, and so was attacking an incorrect position.
2) B dishonestly (i.e. intentionally) misrepresented A's position in order to "score a point".
3) A dishonestly claims that B has misrepresented A's position in order to avoid embarrassment, or "score a point" of their own.
4) A honestly misread B's reply, and so is attacking an incorrect position of B'sI could detail it a bit further, but this is a usefully simplified version. It is practically impossible to tell between 1-4. And even if A or B does misrep in one instance, does not mean another case must be the same.Further, trying to establish 2 or 3 comes down to a he-said she-said ordeal which eats up space and time and energy.The most practical approach, and this works for misrep as well as mistake is to ASSUME an error has been made (so 1 or 4), and clearly restate a position without hostility.If the person you are communicating with continues personal attacks, after attempting to reset dialog with a clear understanding of each other's positions, then what's the point in continuing? Indeed that would seem an indicator the person is more interested in avoiding debate, and so probably a misrepper themselves.A person that continues hostile protestations way past any useful point, and into every new discussion, is also likely a misrepper. They need this as a tactic to throw off their debate opponent, and cover any personal retreat they may have to make.There is really no need for emotional responses. Either enjoyable and effective debate is occurring, or it is not. When it is not, and solid polite attempts to remedy a plausible honest error have failed, then stop talking to the person.I made a mistake recently trying to continue communication after an attempted reset, and started letting it get emotional. I will try harder to avoid that mistake in the future.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

He has never said it about me...so I guess your premise is wrong. What the hell does this even mean? I mean, shit, we can't all be honest and truthful either...so what?Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a typoEdited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

Unfortunately for you it's also an easy one to prove. All I have to do - as I did - was show you the original message as written juxtaposed against the way you represented it.Anyone can see that you misrepresented the content of that message. Until the misrepresentation is expunged, we aren't discussing the same issue. I'm discussing my point, and you're discussing a point nobody has made.When you cease the misrepresentations, that's when the debate can continue. It's impossible to have debate when each side is talking about two different things.It's not a personal attack, Holmes. It's a recognition that your behavior is preventing real debate. When you cease the behavior debate can continue. Not because I'm not going to let it continue until then, or something; but because your behavior is an obstacle to debate.I'd love to debate the issues with you. I'm not stopping the debate. You are, with your misrepresentations. When the misrepresentations come to an end, the debate will continue. You're sitting on the roadblock and complaining that the traffic is stalled. It's absurd. Initially, yes. Which is why the first 20 or 30 times, you got the benefit of the doubt.But as the misrepresentation is addressed, B's motives become clear. When B continues to misrepresent, even when called on it, and insists that his misrepresentation isn't one, it's obvious that B is being disingenuous.Hence, my conclusions about you. One or two misrepresentations in a career of posting? Accident. One or two every single post, or more? That's someone with a problem posting honestly. "You're misrepresenting me" is not an emotional response. It's an objective assessment of one's post, similar to "your argument is wrong." Indeed, to portray it as "emotional" is to be engaged in a misrepresentation, which is why it's so hilarious for you to continue to deny what you're so obviously doing.Do you really think that my recent posts to you have been emotional tirades? Really, honestly? When the only thing I'm trying to do is explain to you how your posts prevent us from achieving your goal of intelligent, meaningful debate?How can that be a tirade? I'm trying to help you. That's why it's so important for you to recognize when you're misrepresenting people, and to try to do it as little as possible.When you deny wholesale that you've ever done it even as you're doing it - when you say "I never took any cookies" when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar - you only drive the threads you're in further off-topic, with the result that 300 posts later, you've completely succeeded in driving debate to a standstill.Civil discussion resumes, Holmes, when you decide to be civil. Again, you have every opportunity to do so in the future, and if you can, you'll have no more complaint from me. I'm not interested in making you atone for the past; that's not within my power. I simply want you to stop being an obstacle to real debate.

Yes, thank you for a good example.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

There's actually a number of probative questions in that post, which I wonder if you would consider answering.

I used to pile POTM nominations on Holmes.Somewhere along the line (before his long vacation from the forum) I got the impression that Holmes' (aka Silent H) writing style had sometimes/often lost its clarity.Not that the content quality or logic quality declined (or did it?) - It's something like Holmes starting speaking like a lawyer. Language so precise that I often had difficulty following what he was trying to say.Has anyone else gotten this impression?Moose

I think Crash said it best: Message 13.Exactly.

I take that back.Kuresu has an even better take: Message 19.Insufferable. Bombastic. Overbearing. Arrogant.Yup.

Holmes and I don't agree on a lot but I don't mind his style. Imo, he's more fair and balanced than the average of us. He advocates for which ever side of the isle that fits the occasion quite forthrightly.He use to do these extremely long messages which few had time to read, let alone assimilate into the mind.

How ironic, I came back to announce I just got some news and was going to have to leave for a while... won't be able to finish current debates... and see this, alas! I was taking all the criticisms regarding the length of my posts to heart. I was told the length was an impediment to understanding.Attempts to prune my posts (and I would often start with longer offline versions) resulted in the barest bones of the argument... and perhaps more technical sounding. It is no longer in my normal writing "voice".Oh yes, and some of my changes also occurred after run ins with certain admins which left me confused as to what was valid or not. I tend to chop whole sections off for that.Once I came back I tried to stick with that mode and get still shorter. This was part of the reason for the name change and my announcement up thread people might not like my new style. It was an intentional experiment.I am sorry that this method (and hopefully it is just the method) has made my posts less clear or interesting. I happened to like your support. Perhaps when I come back from this next break... which may be a few months... I will start posting in my regular voice and say screw it with regard to length. At least I'll feel like I'm no longer posting through a straight jacket.Then again, that'll put me back in the dog house with some.See you around.Edited by Silent H, : -longer +versions

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thank you buz. As I said often, I like you too... regardless of our positions on issues.As you pointed out I started with extremely long posts, which many complained about (and yet I also got many POTMs for). I have noticed that as I shortened my style (even before my long break) I received less POTMs.When I come back, I may very well be posting in long form again. However I'll make an exception just for you!... and maybe Flies.Read you later.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

...Edited by Silent H, : double post

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello Molbio,As this is my last post for a while I considered cutting loose and posting in my original fashion. But really, you don't deserve it. I think you are a smart person who unfortunately does not take the time to apply your mind to a problem, including reading the material you quote for sources. This appears to be a boxing match for you, which is something I never enjoyed about certain posters.Also, you can't seem to take what you like to dish out.I realize I have my weaknesses as a writer. Apparently my experiment in brevity (I used to write like RAZD, but I tried to change to Archer's style) has failed, and I will attempt to correct my errors.I hope you will take my criticisms here to heart, and work on your own weaknesses. Ahem... Kuresu was talking to crash and was describing crash, not me. As ever, you need to check your citations.So long molbio, perhaps we'll meet again some sunny day.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I hope it's not bad news, and I hope to see you back here when you can.Best wishes, H.

---

There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut