And my response...
If you bother to drop by this dark corner of the internet, I appologize for what you've had to put up with for the last few days.
I promise I'll get back to actual "game-speak" after this post. Okay, from time to time I'll slip in some tid-bits of political ranting, but this is the last from the Kearns vs. Rigger bout.
Barry,
You aren't particularly interested in addressing anything I had to say in regards to taking responsiblity for not communicating my meaning to you.
You don't want to go point-by-point because your arguements fail at that level. If you can't mount an argument based on a mountain of emotional evidence, you aren't interested in talking at all.
Admittedly, I probably butchered some of your lengthy words, but that was purely out of carelessness and had nothing to do with malicious intent. Despite that fact, my negligence did nothing to detract from your meaning. You couldn't be concise if your life depended on it.
Your consent is not needed for me to post your words, publicly. If you don't want your words posted publicly, then don't say them. When I speak, I assume my words might come back to haunt me, that's why I never say anything I don't expressly mean.
I'm thrilled you (or your twitty friend, "Jeff") chose to post links to the MUD-Dev thread in its entirety (on a blog that has fewer comments than even mine does). It only helps to build my case and add validity to my remarks.
Regarding your leftist propaganda - your assertion that "everyone does it" is untrue and rediculous as a logical premise for an arguement.
I don't really care if you respond to me or not. If you do, I'll try to put things into perspective for you, but since you aren't interested in a logical view-point I don't know what good it will do. Ah, but that's how I am. I'm the kind of guy who will rail against the darkness even when I'm the only one doing it.
Thanks,
Jaycen
P.S. If you're so bent out of shape by what you've read in my e-mails and my blogs, you can start your own blog (rather than referencing other people's) and say anything you like. Heck, I'd be thrilled to have a hate site devoted to me. Then I could tell my family and friends "I've finally made it!"
I promise I'll get back to actual "game-speak" after this post. Okay, from time to time I'll slip in some tid-bits of political ranting, but this is the last from the Kearns vs. Rigger bout.
Barry,
You aren't particularly interested in addressing anything I had to say in regards to taking responsiblity for not communicating my meaning to you.
You don't want to go point-by-point because your arguements fail at that level. If you can't mount an argument based on a mountain of emotional evidence, you aren't interested in talking at all.
Admittedly, I probably butchered some of your lengthy words, but that was purely out of carelessness and had nothing to do with malicious intent. Despite that fact, my negligence did nothing to detract from your meaning. You couldn't be concise if your life depended on it.
Your consent is not needed for me to post your words, publicly. If you don't want your words posted publicly, then don't say them. When I speak, I assume my words might come back to haunt me, that's why I never say anything I don't expressly mean.
I'm thrilled you (or your twitty friend, "Jeff") chose to post links to the MUD-Dev thread in its entirety (on a blog that has fewer comments than even mine does). It only helps to build my case and add validity to my remarks.
Regarding your leftist propaganda - your assertion that "everyone does it" is untrue and rediculous as a logical premise for an arguement.
I don't really care if you respond to me or not. If you do, I'll try to put things into perspective for you, but since you aren't interested in a logical view-point I don't know what good it will do. Ah, but that's how I am. I'm the kind of guy who will rail against the darkness even when I'm the only one doing it.
Thanks,
Jaycen
P.S. If you're so bent out of shape by what you've read in my e-mails and my blogs, you can start your own blog (rather than referencing other people's) and say anything you like. Heck, I'd be thrilled to have a hate site devoted to me. Then I could tell my family and friends "I've finally made it!"
posted by Jaycen Rigger at 1:07 AM
2 Comments:
> Barry,
>
> You aren't particularly interested in addressing anything I had to say in > regards to taking responsiblity for not communicating my meaning to you.
That's simply untrue, and easily contradicted by the fact that I did precisely that when I addressed your assertion that you were taking "total ownership" of your miscommunication. These absolute statements of yours are troublesome. I wonder if you understand the logical implication of using them.
I addressed your claim to total responsibility with a contrasting view: that "total responsibility" doesn't involve mentioning anyone else's capabilities... and such mentions are sometimes used as a backhanded slap at another person's capacities.
"Anything" isn't the same as "everything". I didn't address EVERYTHING you had to say regarding taking ownership, because a lot of it was needlessly repetitive, and associated a little to closely with your invective-spewing insults. I was looking for rational points to address in context, not addressing your obscene outbursts.
> You don't want to go point-by-point because your arguements fail at that level. If you can't mount an argument
> based on a mountain of emotional evidence, you aren't interested in talking at all.
That's a puzzling conclusion. The vast majority of what I've written on this matter has been directed at rational argument rather than emotion, yet you seem to conclude the exact opposite. I think my arguments are strongest when I go point-by-point, but I don't prioritize this quixotic little exercise as important enough to justify creating ever-more-massive essays with enough detail that it's thoroughly insulated from the possibility of misunderstanding.
Generally, when I know I'm dealing with rational people, I can shorthand the process and know (to a reasonable degree of confidence) that what I write will be processed logically... and I therefore don't need to build such a rigorous case. I could express similar thoughts in a more concise way, but the more I excise away, the greater the probability of misinterpretation. I suppose it was foolish to try to be utterly clear. If you've made up you mind what I mean before I bother to say it, what's the point in communicating at all?
> Admittedly, I probably butchered some of your lengthy words, but that was purely out of carelessness and had
> nothing to do with malicious intent. Despite that fact, my negligence did nothing to detract from your meaning.
Of course it did. I wrote:
That's what makes the phrase "I don't know how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" into a complete grenade when thrown into a conversation, IMO. It tends to portray the other person as hopelessly dim, and someone who needs to have an explanation "dumbed down" in order to understand.
You chopped it down to:
That's what makes the phrase "I don't know how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" into a complete grenade when thrown into a conversation, IMO. It tends to "dumbed down" in order to understand.
That leaves out the entire explanation of why such a construction might be considered a personal attack: that the person hearing it is too dim to grasp what's going on, and NEEDS to have the explanation dumbed down if they are to understand. Without the center of the sentence, most of the distinctive meaning disappears.
So yes, your negligence *did* do something (rather than nothing) to detract from the meaning.
> You couldn't be concise if your life depended on it.
Sure I can. I could summarize my responses in that entire email easily. How's this:
----
I chose to address the meat. Insult less and you'll get more response.
You hacked up my writing and chopped out the context. Lame. People can't tell what I really meant that way. I gave you the chance to do this quiet, but you wanted to flaunt bits to make yourself big. Whatever. Put the whole truth out there. Seeing propaganda isn't a signifier at all, it's common to most political systems. Pot, kettle.
I mostly answered the NON-negative parts. You still suck at figuring out what I think. It helps to set shit-talking straight no matter the audience size. You being clueless != me being inconsistent. You're a bot, right? Grow up already. HINT: You're getting a rep for being an idiot.
----
I know what all of that means, but without all of the context and more detailed explanations, there's massive opportunity to misunderstand that summary, and not get the finer points that I'd prefer to convey.
I could do it with other points from previous messages, too:
Talking about someone else isn't taking ownership. Saying "I don't know how to make this clear" would be.
It's probably not worth it at this point to try to make myself crystal-clear... it looks like you've made up your mind no matter what.
> Your consent is not needed for me to post your words, publicly. If you
> don't want your words posted publicly, then don't say them. When I speak,
> I assume my words might come back to haunt me, that's why I never say
> anything I don't expressly mean.
I had no problem with the entirety of what I wrote being posted, it's the hack job that bugs me. Sure, no one NEEDS consent to post stuff. Nothing technically STOPS you from being an ass. Courtesy and netiquette must be foreign concepts for you. No wonder the moderator at MUD-Dev provided a warning about your "player rant" when you originally posted it to the list.
I'm happy to have an ACCURATE, COMPLETE copy of what I wrote publicly available. It's the inaccurate versions (by hacking away context) that bother me, because selective editing can be used to convey wrong impressions about what someone else meant.
> I'm thrilled you (or your twitty friend, "Jeff") chose to post links to
> the MUD-Dev thread in its entirety (on a blog that has fewer comments than
> even mine does). It only helps to build my case and add validity to my
> remarks.
Heh... if you think so, great. I have no idea who Jeff is, and only stumbled across his blog while looking for web-based versions of MUD-Dev, since the archives have been down forever. That blog has apparently been around for well over a year, though, and moved recently. I'd count again before assuming it has less of a readership that yours. Doesn't much matter either way. Glad to see you embracing the concept of people seeing the full context, though. Congratulations!
> Regarding your leftist propaganda - your assertion that "everyone does
> it" is untrue and rediculous as a logical premise for an arguement.
I'm apparently not making myself clear. (See, THAT'S how you take ownership!) The key point that I was trying to make is that propaganda is not a SIGNIFIER. Seeing it doesn't tell you anything useful that helps to distinguish a person's political orientation.
Saying someone is a leftist because you think they use propaganda is employing a syllogistic logical fallacy. In effect, you've employing the following argument:
1. Letists employ rhetoric, propaganda and lies.
2. You employ rhetoric, propaganda and lies.
3. Therefore, you are a leftist.
However, this does not logically follow, because the set of people that employ rhetoric, propaganda and lies is LARGER than the set of all leftists. It's a non-exclusive property.
The argument can be recast in the following form:
1. All members of set A have property B.
2. Object C has property B.
3. Therefore, Object C is a member of set A.
It's logically flawed because property B isn't an EXCLUSIVE property of set A. You could use that logic to "prove" all sorts of goofy things that are untrue. Dogs have four legs, an elephant has four legs, therefore an elephant is a dog. Axe murderers breathe air, you breathe air, therefore you're an axe murderer.
To get your desired effect, you'd have to be able to show that ONLY members of set A have property B. Then the logical argument is sound. But since some non-leftists employ rhetoric, lies and propaganda, the logical argument fails.
Clearer? That's why I was pointing out that others do it too... not to say that "everyone does it" is an excuse, but to show that your reasoning (about me being a leftist) was flawed. I had assumed that you understood and could properly apply compositional logic... perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
If you'd like to try to refute the logic of the above explanation, please feel free. I'm confident it is an entirely sound refutation of your thesis.
> I don't really care if you respond to me or not. If you do, I'll try to
> put things into perspective for you, but since you aren't interested in a
> logical view-point I don't know what good it will do. Ah, but that's how
> I am. I'm the kind of guy who will rail against the darkness even when
> I'm the only one doing it.
I *am* interested in a logical view-point... I simply think it's a mistake to think that your view-point is logical, Jaycen. There are clearly aspects of it that are not, as I've shown above. As a whole, I can't recall a good instance of sound logical reasoning that you've ever offered regarding this subject. My recall isn't top-notch, though, so perhaps you can provide some full-context examples.
If you'd like to present sound logic, by all means... go ahead. I'm willing to point out where I see a lack of soundness, and we can try to reason together (to a certain degree... time to spend on this isn't unlimited, after all.)
Good luck, Jaycen.
> P.S. If you're so bent out of shape by what you've read in my e-mails and
> my blogs, you can start your own blog (rather than referencing other
> people's) and say anything you like. Heck, I'd be thrilled to have a hate
> site devoted to me. Then I could tell my family and friends "I've finally
> made it!"
How puzzling. You linked to my blog earlier, but now act as if I don't have one (and would therefore need to "start one"). I'm hardly "bent out of shape" regarding any of this... it's a minor diversion at most. I'm thoroughly uninterested in the whole "hate site" thing. You appear to be the one terribly wound up over this whole thing, and hell-bent on flinging invective and profanity at me. Why else would you be writing about it with such vitriol, and refer to a set of replies on MUD-Dev as "taking the beating of my life"?
Overdramatize much? Are you trying to construct a "hate site" yourself, perhaps?
Relax, man. I (and others) treated you sarcastically when you were showing your ass in public and being a jerk. That's unfortunate for you, but hardly unpredictable or even unreasonable. If that's "the beating of your life", public forums are probably not a healthy place for you to be. Seriously.
Barry Kearns
aka VekTor
http://vektor.blogs.com
*SIGH*
Post a Comment
<< Home