Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What the H - Holmes is back!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 65 (436990)
11-28-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jon
11-28-2007 9:29 AM


'Course, you say this 'bout everyone
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jon, posted 11-28-2007 9:29 AM Jon has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


(1)
Message 47 of 65 (437030)
11-28-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by FliesOnly
11-28-2007 8:34 AM


Re: ha..good one... a discussion on good ones.
I don't want to get dragged into this...but that was a good one.
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's
I 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by FliesOnly, posted 11-28-2007 8:34 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 3:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4226 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 48 of 65 (437035)
11-28-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jon
11-28-2007 9:29 AM


Re:
AgamemJon writes:
'Course, you say this 'bout everyone
He has never said it about me...so I guess your premise is wrong.
AgamemJon writes:
We can't all be deceitful and deluded, can we?
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 typo
Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jon, posted 11-28-2007 9:29 AM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 65 (437036)
11-28-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Silent H
11-28-2007 3:30 PM


Re: ha..good one... a discussion on good ones.
The claim of misrepresentation is an easy one to make
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.
It's like "Abracadabra" now I am justified in NOT discussing the issue and turn it on YOU instead.
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.
It is practically impossible to tell between 1-4.
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.
There is really no need for emotional responses.
"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.
Further, trying to establish 2 or 3 comes down to a he-said she-said ordeal which eats up space and time and energy.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 11-28-2007 3:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 11-28-2007 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


(1)
Message 50 of 65 (437070)
11-28-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
11-28-2007 3:48 PM


Re: ha..good one... a discussion on good ones.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 3:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 6:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 65 (437073)
11-28-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Silent H
11-28-2007 6:48 PM


Re: ha..good one... a discussion on good ones.
There's actually a number of probative questions in that post, which I wonder if you would consider answering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 11-28-2007 6:48 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 52 of 65 (462474)
04-03-2008 8:34 PM


The state of the Holmes
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2008 11:06 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 04-04-2008 12:41 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2723 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 53 of 65 (462475)
04-03-2008 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Minnemooseus
04-03-2008 8:34 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
I think Crash said it best:
I never found Holmes's contributions anything to celebrate, except when he was arguing with Rrhain. (It's like crossing the streams, only instead of the proton packs, it's sophistry.)
Message 13.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-03-2008 8:34 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:52 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2723 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 65 (462476)
04-03-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by molbiogirl
04-03-2008 10:47 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
I take that back.
Kuresu has an even better take:
The silent majority has spoken on occassion. We do find you insufferable at times. And we've told you as much.
I personally find you bombastic and overbearing, and sometimes too arrogant.
Not sure if the silent are a majority, of course, but there are those who can't stand you at times.
Message 19.
Insufferable. Bombastic. Overbearing. Arrogant.
Yup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:47 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 04-04-2008 1:07 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 04-04-2008 1:10 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 65 (462477)
04-03-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Minnemooseus
04-03-2008 8:34 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-03-2008 8:34 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 04-04-2008 12:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


(1)
Message 56 of 65 (462479)
04-04-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Minnemooseus
04-03-2008 8:34 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
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!
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-03-2008 8:34 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2008 6:35 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 04-04-2008 7:58 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-04-2008 11:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


(1)
Message 57 of 65 (462481)
04-04-2008 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
04-03-2008 11:06 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
Holmes and I don't agree on a lot but I don't mind his style.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2008 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 65 (462483)
04-04-2008 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
04-03-2008 10:52 PM


...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:52 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


(1)
Message 59 of 65 (462484)
04-04-2008 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
04-03-2008 10:52 PM


Re: The state of the Holmes
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.
Insufferable. Bombastic. Overbearing. Arrogant.
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.
Kuresu has an even better take:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 04-03-2008 10:52 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 60 of 65 (462487)
04-04-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Silent H
04-04-2008 12:41 AM


Re: The state of the Holmes
...I came back to announce I just got some news and was going to have to leave for a while....
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 04-04-2008 12:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 04-17-2008 12:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024