Re: Opening

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:27:56 +0100, spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan
L Cunningham) wrote:

Okay, a single pass through. And then I'mdone.

<shrug> I'm getting tired of saying that I'm not making a moral
judgement.

Believe me, so is everyone else. But the fact that you *keep getting
the same reaction* probably means that - at best - you are
miscommunicating your message to a percentage of your readers. Your
"aw shucks" tone doesn't make me think that you're being "chatty and
pleasant" about things, combined with the things you SAY in that tone
it actually engenders a reaction in me (and obviously others) that
you're being snarky and sarcastic and keeping the tone where it is
just so that you can point to it later and say, "Moi? Snarky? But LOOK
at how chatty and pleasant I was being!"

Your interpretation is probably correct. It amounts to accusing me of
lying when I say I'm not making a moral judgement. I find *that*
offensive. (I understand that *you* are not making that accusation.)

No. It amounts to telling you that you're looking down on other people
and telling them that, really, that pesky memory thing is their fault
and it really could be remedied if only they'd put an effort into it.
WHich makes a judgment on THEIR moral character - you are implying
that people who don't remember names do so because they are lazy, or
don't care, or are simply too arrogant to put in the "necessary" time
in to produce the required results and are thus inventing reasons not
to. Every time someone chimed in with, "But I honestly DON'T remember
names" you'd come back with a comment that ammounted to a "there,
there, it'll all be better soon, just go home and do your homework
PROPERLY". That might not have been what you think you were saying but
that is how you were coming across, and dammit, that isn't a moral
judgment, that's a matter of reading what you wrote and responding to
what I saw before me. You may not like it that people misunderstand
you so consistently, but the fact is they do, and you can't expect the
rest of the world to change to accomodate your own worldview.. You
just plain CAN'T.

I could make an argument for why remembering names is bad because it's
more manipulative, whereas not remembering names is friendlier.

What has THAT got to do with ANYTHING? Now you're saying that not
remembering someone's name is being deliberately unfriendly??


It looks to me like a double standard: people proudly proclaim that "I
can't remember names" and then get all touchy about it. I don't see
anything *bad*, in the ethical sense, about not remembering names. But I
see no reason to get all defensive (or proud) about it either.

Nobody's proud about it, only pragmatic - and you're the only one
who's defensive!

The only *bad* thing I see is purely practical. It's easy to pretend not
to know someone's name, so there are few situations where it's a
disadvantage.

Oh, so now it isn't just lazy or arrogant, it's dishonest, too? It's
easy to pretend that you don't remember someone's name, so of course
whenever you fail to do so you are delliberately snubbing someone and
then lying about it to their face? Now you're not just crossing moral
lines, you're wiping them out. It may well be easy to pretend that
you've forgotten someone's name but you're apparently telling people
that you believe that this blatant dishonesty is the reason they've
forgotten the name in question. You're calling complete strangers
liars here - and all because you can't seem to accept that some people
genuinely cannot remember a name when pressed. WHy is that so hard for
you to take on board?


I wouldn't mind so much if I thought the people who are (ISTM
deliberately) getting the wrong end of the stick were incapable of
understanding my statements. ISTM they wilfully choose not to.

You're accusing us of lying again.

You are failing to get your point across. You are getting reactions
you don't want to get. So obviously the reason is that people are out
to get you. They "willfully choose" not to get what is obviously your
crystal-clear prose and points - well, it's that, or they're idiots.

That isn't what you meant to say?... SOrry, but that's what it came
across as. And as someone who is neither an idiot nor comes to your
posts with the preconceived idea of misinterpreting them, willfully or
not, I take offense at the implication.

That's one of the more unsavoury habits that rasfc (en masse) is prone to.

What? Calling a spade a spade? Calling something that's unclear as
being unclear? Being honest with you? My, what an unsavoury bunch we
are.

I find people interesting, but they can be very irritating to talk to,
at times.

Especially when they don't agree with every word you say. That can be
very irritating, yes, yes, yes.

<sigh>

A.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kooks, Trolls and Witches: An Appeal To Reason
    ... >> to justifying name calling as reasonable within this ... Reason can solve anything. ... > of the insult is another matter. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why we build big computers
    ... reason for calling you out has something to do with group dynamics, ... Yes there are group dynamics here. ... There was no reason to attack Nick, whom I esteem to be a very bright ... This group has been very tolerant of my sometimes-ignorant rants. ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Learning to use decorators with classes
    ... and it's a FAQ FWIW - but since there's no ... The reason we have to explicitly mention it as first ... this method object, it inserts the instance as first ... IOW, and to make a long story short, calling ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Lethality of events
    ... Thinking about it a bit more, I think the reason I'm reluctant to pass judgement on those who want to play evil characters is because I'd end up having to pass judgement on pretty much the entire human race. ... But we could equally choose to slice it other ways: we could say it's specially bad if it's real life news reports rather than mere fiction in which one chooses to wallow; and let's be honest, the main reason we don't choose to do the latter is because the numbers wouldn't be in our favor in that case. ...
    (rec.games.frp.advocacy)
  • Re: Pocket PC flicker
    ... Michael, this is the whole reason they don't want you calling ... > ControlBox ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)