elindholm
edited for content
Heh, good one capologist!
Chris_Sanders:
You really go for the throat when you don't agree with someone, to the point you trash their view entirely. I don't know if you intend that, but that is what I see.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I disagree with your characterization of the majority of my posts, but that's okay -- at least you're letting me know what the problem is.
If someone is reaching a conclusion based on faulty evidence, I will point out where I think the evidence is faulty, but it's not (usually) intended personally. But some people find that insulting. I don't mean to sound stubborn, but I'm not going to change the way I discuss things. I don't think that any real exchange of understanding can take place unless people really think about why they believe what they do.
So, carry on! Now I'll know why I'm on your S-list, and that will make it easier.
Chris_Sanders:
You really go for the throat when you don't agree with someone, to the point you trash their view entirely. I don't know if you intend that, but that is what I see.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I disagree with your characterization of the majority of my posts, but that's okay -- at least you're letting me know what the problem is.
If someone is reaching a conclusion based on faulty evidence, I will point out where I think the evidence is faulty, but it's not (usually) intended personally. But some people find that insulting. I don't mean to sound stubborn, but I'm not going to change the way I discuss things. I don't think that any real exchange of understanding can take place unless people really think about why they believe what they do.
So, carry on! Now I'll know why I'm on your S-list, and that will make it easier.