alex23 wrote:
> r0g wrote:
>> Well I think sometimes, for the sake of expediency and overall
>> pleasantness, it's better to let the smaller things go: and if you just
>> can't let them go then at least try and issue corrections in a friendly
>> manner rather than a cold or pious one.
>
> The iro
r0g wrote:
> Well I think sometimes, for the sake of expediency and overall
> pleasantness, it's better to let the smaller things go: and if you just
> can't let them go then at least try and issue corrections in a friendly
> manner rather than a cold or pious one.
The irony, it is too rich...
--
Ben Finney wrote:
> r0g writes:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> People sometimes get upset — on an immediate, irrational level —
>>> when their assertions are challenged. There's no denying that
>>> emotions entangle our discourse, and our interpretation of the
>>> discourse of others.
>> That's truer
r0g writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > People sometimes get upset — on an immediate, irrational level —
> > when their assertions are challenged. There's no denying that
> > emotions entangle our discourse, and our interpretation of the
> > discourse of others.
>
> That's truer than most people appr
Ben Finney wrote:
> In fairness, the “No” was in response, not to an explicit question, but
> to an assertion.
>
> Every assertion expressed, though, implies the question “is this
> assertion true?”. It was that question that was answered “No” (followed
> by an explanation of why the assertion was
Grant Edwards writes:
> Answering a yes/no question with "no" doesn't seem to me to be
> combative if the correct answer is indeed "no". But I've lost
> track of the post you found objectionable...
In fairness, the “No” was in response, not to an explicit question, but
to an assertion.
Every a
