Misunderstanding and Correction or Misrepresentation and Deception

quote:

---

My recollection is that several posts over several days elapsed in between my reply indicating that I had interpreted you as assenting to a paragraph instead of contradicting a question and your first insistence that I had "misrepresented" you, and that your insistence that I misrepresented you began only when I showed you how positions you had indicated assent to had directly contradicted the position you opened the thread to defend.

---

PaulK has summed it up twice for you now.When we look at the exchange summed up in Message 19, we see that messages 27-31 are all on May 5 which is also the day you first entered the discussion. So your recollection is incorrect. You jump in, screwed up, and were corrected all in the same day.I'm not sure why you're relying on your recollection when the thread is easily accessible and PaulK summed it up very nicely for you in the Problem thread.May 8th (after I was asleep) is when you next replied to pinpoint message 27 as the source of your error. I replied the next morning on May 9th. I also posted the request in the Problem thread on May 9th.So again, no long passage of time before I corrected your mistake. Not a day and not a week. A post is not equal to a day.For a science guy, you don't check your facts very well. It's all there in blue and white. How can you continue to ignore the facts?

Chuckled over that for a while.

PaulK, I don't see how your "findings" can be accurate. Message 27 and 28 were posted on May 5th; the first time that PD accuses me of having "misunderstood" her remarks is Message 40, which was posted May 8th.That's an elapsed period of three days, or "several days" as I said.I'm correct in how I've construed the exchange. This is inaccurate; the post clearly specifies that it was a reply to Message 29. It's right there at the bottom.

Your first "correction" - that is, the time when you began to falsely claim that I had misrepresented you - is Message 40, posted three days after the initial exchange. PaulK's summary is doubly incorrect.So, again - if there was a genuine misrepresentation why did it take you three days to correct it?

quote:

---

Your first "correction" - that is, the time when you began to falsely claim that I had misrepresented you - is Message 40, posted three days after the initial exchange. PaulK's summary is doubly incorrect.

---

Incorrect. The first correction was in Message 31. Since I didn't know what words of mine gave you that idea, I had no way to address your source directly. Three days later is when you told me that Message 27 was the source of your understanding.

quote:

---

So, again - if there was a genuine misrepresentation why did it take you three days to correct it?

---

You jumped in, screwed up and were corrected all on the same day.It's on the record.

So she says. I don't believe her, and it's obvious from the text that she's not. But I've made no error, as I've explained. Thus "crashfrog made an error" can't be the explanation. You're right - it's very obvious that she intended to agree with me that the modern interpretation of the verse, as I described, was "appropriate." I mean, who could possibly disagree with that? Why would anyone believe the converse? That's just idiotic. You're half right - courts interpret written confessions according to what they say on paper, not what the defendant says about what he meant when he wrote it. When you provide a written confession to the court, guess how much credence you're given when you later come back and say "Uh, oops, I guess there was some kind of misunderstanding - I didn't actually intend to confess to murder on paper, I thought I was writing a crime story from the perspective of the murderer!"None at all, typically. Even in cases where that might actually be true - where police genuinely have tricked or manipulated people, particularly those with cognitive impairments, into writing false confessions. The power of the written word is stronger than the author's testaments. The Intentional Fallacy is almost always a fallacy. Yes! Now you're getting it. After all, they could simply be lying - particularly when they refuse to take any responsibility at all for how they caused a misunderstanding, if indeed one occurred. There's every possible way I could be wrong about this, which is why ever since PD came up with this "misunderstanding" nonsense, I've tried to go back and re-read her comments in the light of her testament that I got it wrong.But it just doesn't track. Every time I do I'm like "um, no, just doesn't work - there's just no way she didn't mean 'That's an appropriate way to construe it.'" That's a signal phrase for agreement, regardless of PD's later self-serving testament to the contrary.I mean I had her pretty much boxed in on her own words. Of course she'd come back with some nonsense about how I'd misrepresented her. That's what you people always do when I catch you in a contradiction.

quote:

---

PaulK, I don't see how your "findings" can be accurate. Message 27 and 28 were posted on May 5th; the first time that PD accuses me of having "misunderstood" her remarks is Message 40, which was posted May 8th.

---

If you bothered to read my timeline, you would understand: The date of posting message 28 is therefore not relevant. There is no way that Purpledawn could possibly tell that you had misunderstood at all from that.So, we have to look for the message where you tell Purpledawn how you interpreted Message 27. And my time line gives that, too. And Message 39 was posted on the same day - by my clock - as Purpledawn's response, Message 40.So now I've repeated it a third time, now do you understand ?

Uh, no. There's no mention of any "misunderstanding" in message 31, and the message indicates your continued agreement:

quote:

---

I agree that the phrase "worshiping Mammon" does not include any actual worship.

---

Rather than being a correction, Message 31 simply continues our accord on the appropriate interpretation of the passage. You knew exactly what words of yours gave me that idea, because not only did you write them, I quoted them back to you when you asked me where you had said what you said. If a misunderstanding had occurred it was apparent long before the three days you waited to tell me I was in the wrong. You're right, it is. So how is it that you're getting it so wrong?

Why would it? If I told you I agreed with you about something that you thought was in dispute, why would you do anything but take it as given and then continue on to the next part of your argument?If you said "well, I'm glad you agree!" I would conclude you were a condescending ass. It's kind of rude, frankly. That's clearly message 28, which is obviously intended as a reply to message 27. It says so at the bottom. I have no trouble understanding it, PaulK, you're just wrong. Do you understand how, now that you've been corrected twice?

quote:

---

Why would it? If I told you I agreed with you about something that you thought was in dispute, why would you do anything but take it as given and then continue on to the next part of your argument?

---

It's not a question of why it would. It is a question of when Purpledawn learned of your misinterpretation of message 27. Even if silence is to be taken as assent, rather than simply dropping the subject, Purpledawn cannot know that your interpretation is correct or incorrect - let lone exactly what your interpretation is.

quote:

---

That's clearly message 28, which is obviously intended as a reply to message 27. It says so at the bottom.

---

It is clearly NOT message 28, because as you admit you say absolutely nothing about that part at all.

quote:

---

I have no trouble understanding it, PaulK, you're just wrong. Do you understand how, now that you've been corrected twice?

---

Obviously you don't understand it. Purpledawn cannot read minds, therefore Purpledawn cannot know of your misinterpretation until you reveal it. You did not reveal it until message 39. The 3 day gap is the time it took you to reveal YOUR interpretation. Therefore, if it counts against anyone, it counts against you.

quote:

---

Uh, no. There's no mention of any "misunderstanding" in message 31, and the message indicates your continued agreement:

---

I see, because I didn't actually use the word misunderstanding. Wow, you got me there. My bad.Same song second verse.In message 30, you stated: In message 31, I told you that I had not agreed. That is correction.

quote:

---

Rather than being a correction, Message 31 simply continues our accord on the appropriate interpretation of the passage.

---

Nope. Message 31 is a correction and addresses what I assumed may have been the source of your misunderstanding and that was my agreement with the worshiping mammon issue. There was no mention of the issue with Message 27 which you pointed out 3 days later as the source of your understanding. You didn't mention the issue with worshiping mammon.

quote:

---

You knew exactly what words of yours gave me that idea, because not only did you write them, I quoted them back to you when you asked me where you had said what you said. If a misunderstanding had occurred it was apparent long before the three days you waited to tell me I was in the wrong.

---

Read carefully. I didn't ask you any questions in message 31. The facts are not in your favor.

It would be in message 28, the direct reply, where it was clear that I interpreted her as indicating assent. And then, as if that wasn't clear enough, there was message 30, still on May 5th:

quote:

---

You've already agreed, though, that that's not what "worshiping a false god" means. You've agreed that it doesn't mean temples and prostrate worship; you've agreed that it means "putting material concerns ahead of spiritual ones."

---

And then if that wasn't enough, when she tried to backpedal from her initial agreement on the issue, still on the 5th, I said:

quote:

---

I'm sorry? Did you not write Message 27? If someone else is posting under your name maybe you could let Percy know. But Message 27 as written has this exchange:

​

crash writes:
There's not a lot of competition for Christianity anymore, at least not among polytheistic religions. That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

​

dawn writes:
I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.

---

And then finally on the 9th (sorry, it's the 9th rather than the 8th as I mistakenly said earlier) she replies to this message by indicating that I've "misinterpreted" her remarks:

quote:

---

I've given you notice that you have misconstrued my response.

---

Four days later? What took so long if this was a "misunderstanding"? If it was a misunderstanding it certainly should have been clear on the 5th, when I directly told her how I was interpreting her remarks and which remarks I was interpreting.Four days to come up with "oh, this is all your fault and your misinterpretation"? That's what it looks like when someone is casting about for an excuse to justify a major backpedal, not what it looks like when someone says to themselves "wow, how did I get misunderstood so completely? Oh, I see - haha, what a goof! Here's what I really meant."Instead I'm "on notice" despite the fact that this is literally the first time she's suggested that anything has been "misinterpreted." Of course, it's not the first time PD has wrongfully accused me of it so should I be surprised that it's her first recourse when she realizes she can't dig herself out of this hole?And, of course she has to open this thread about it, because she's committed to it. She can't possibly agree that she's backpedaling or even that she spoke ambiguously because she's committed herself to this line of attack. She's stuck.Obviously. I can't for the life of me see how any other interpretation makes sense. I've been charitable enough to extend the olive branch and allow PD to simply admit she spoke ambiguously and caused the misunderstanding, but even that was rebuffed.Because it's personal for her. She needs Crashfrog's head on her mantlepiece, at this point. She's even admitted it.

If it's your belief that you can communicate concepts without using the words that would indicate those concepts, that might be an explanation for how your writing style causes substantial misunderstandings of your intended meaning.So, I accept your apology and your promise to improve on it in the future. After all, the fact that you've neither used the words "apology" or "I intend to improve on it in the future" shouldn't be interpreted as indicating that you're neither apologizing nor promising to improve, right? No, it's just you claiming not to have said something that you said. You're neither the first nor the last to do so, and it's not a "correction" it's an attempt to mislead. People do it all the time. I've even done it, and imagine the egg on my face when people throw my own words back up at me.They're right to do so, but man is it humiliating. I understand the humiliation you must have felt and therefore the temptation to ride this "crashfrog misinterprets things" train.But it's not working. People can see that you simply tried to backpedal out of it and got caught, and they know that when I do genuinely make errors I take responsibility for them and correct myself. PaulK knows it because I recently had to do so to him in another thread. Jar and Jon know that I do it because I've sought correction from the two of them recently as well.It's time for you to take responsibility as well, and admit either that your language imprecision led to this misunderstanding or that you actually got cornered in an argument and tried to talk your way out. I promise I'm not going to hold either against you. If you want we'll never even talk about it again. I really don't care about anything except you discontinuing your shame-driven personal vendetta against me.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

She needs Crashfrog's head on her mantlepiece, at this point. She's even admitted it.

---

You're gigging yourself.

quote:

---

And then if that wasn't enough, when she tried to backpedal from her initial agreement on the issue, still on the 5th, I said:

---

Date stamp for that is May 8th.

quote:

---

And then finally on the 9th (sorry, it's the 9th rather than the 8th as I mistakenly said earlier) she replies to this message by indicating that I've "misinterpreted" her remarks:

---

Your post was 11:03pm on the 8th and I responded at 7:25 am on the 9th. I do sleep at night. Can't count that against me. I did eat breakfast. Then there's the time it takes to research the timelines and delete expletives, etc. Nothing sinister about that.

quote:

---

Obviously. I can't for the life of me see how any other interpretation makes sense. I've been charitable enough to extend the olive branch and allow PD to simply admit she spoke ambiguously and caused the misunderstanding, but even that was rebuffed.

---

I have no problem with someone misunderstanding what I wrote. I can correct a misunderstanding which is what I have attempted to do.The problem here is that you don't accept the correction and wish to hold me accountable to the erroneous position you created for me while proclaiming deceit and lies.All you needed to do was accept the correction. Then we could have continued the discussion with the position I actual held and not the one you created for me.

quote:

---

It's time for you to take responsibility as well, and admit either that your language imprecision led to this misunderstanding or that you actually got cornered in an argument and tried to talk your way out.

---

So you did misunderstand what I wrote?