"You can answer these questions directly or move on, please, if you are
not wanting to engage in rational, civil, respectful and gracious
dialog. Thank you."
Why is it that when Dan makes this request is a a completely appropriate and rational thing to do, but when I ask the same courtesy of him, he always manages to come up with excuses for not answering?
Oh, I'm sure it's completely different. I'm even sure Dan can rationalize and justify his double standard.
I think I'll just keep this quote around, that way I'll be able to deal with Dan the right way in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sound policy.
I ask it because there is a history of people not directly answering my questions, Craig. Conversely, I have a solid history of answering questions asked of me. I would be willing to bet that if one took all the questions asked of me and found the number of answers I've given, it would be upwards of 95% of the time that I answer questions. And do so directly. The only times I might not have is when someone loads up dozens (literally) of questions, many of which are rhetorical (that is, so obvious as to not need an answer like "Dan, do you really want to see babies killed...?" kind of thing) or the other time I may not answer questions is when the conversation is one-sided and I keep getting asked questions but don't have my questions directly answered.
The data supports the reality of my being one who consistently answers questions. Do you really doubt this reality?
If so and you want to make the charge/be the accuser, then the onus is on you to provide data to support your charge.
And if, as the data no doubt, supports, I actually do answer questions 95+% of the time, and you are the one who happens to have a bunch of unanswered questions (or what you think are unanswered questions), perhaps the better part of wisdom might be to ask yourself, "Why does this fella who goes out of his way and spends time regularly striving to answer questions... why has he left some of my questions unanswered...?"
It's a good question to ask yourself. I have asked myself that question regularly and have what I believe are good guesses as to why that's the case.
"I ask it because there is a history of people not directly answering my questions, Craig. Conversely, I have a solid history of answering questions asked of me."
This is a great example of Dan choosing to ignore things that are inconvenient to the narrative in his mind. The facts are that over the past few months I have answered virtually every question Dan has asked, while he has just offered excuses for not answering.
"The data supports the reality of my being one who consistently answers questions. Do you really doubt this reality?"
If, in point of fact, the "data supports the reality of being one who consistently answers questions", then you should be happy to actually provide the data you claim exists that "supports" your claim of fact.
In contrast I can point o a recent thread where virtually every single question you asked was answered, in addition to multiple posts where hundreds of your questions were answered, as actual, literal "data" which does not support your claim.
Yes, I both doubt your claim (especially as it applies to the last 6 months of so), I also doubt your ability to produce "data" that "supports' your claim of fact.
"If so and you want to make the charge/be the accuser, then the onus is on you to provide data to support your charge."
http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2015/12/hate.html
http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2014/12/this-is-answer-dans-been-whining-about.html
http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2014/10/one-more-lengthy-post-of-answers-for-dan.html
http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2014/10/one-more-lengthy-post-of-answers-for-dan.html
OK< I've provided "data" to support my "charge".
Now let's see you provide "data" that "supports" your claim.
"And if, as the data no doubt, supports, I actually do answer questions 95+% of the time, and you are the one who happens to have a bunch of unanswered questions..."
OK then, you've made a "charge" as well as a claim in the above sentence. So...
"If so and you want to make the charge/be the accuser, then the onus is on you to provide data to support your charge."
"The data supports the reality of my being one who consistently answers questions. Do you really doubt this reality?"
If, in point of fact, the "data supports the reality of being one who consistently answers questions", then you should be happy to actually provide the data you claim exists that "supports" your claim of fact.
No, Craig. YOU are making the charge. Back it up with data or admit you can't/won't and withdraw the claim. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you want to sit in the role of accuser, you back up the claim.
You say you doubt that I generally answer questions (and for some reason, choose "especially" the last six months), fine, support the charge.
I'm not accusing you, Craig, you are accusing me. Support it or admit you can't. Come on, be a man. It's okay to admit it when you can't support a charge. Just back down, you're only embarrassing yourself.
On at least the first thread in question, you continually (either intentionally or unintentionally) kept misrepresenting my positions and twisting words and we were not getting anywhere trying to deal with a few questions and, in the midst of that, you piled on some DOZENS of questions. At a time when we couldn't get past what was and wasn't being said on just a few questions. If it took me, say, 2 hours to get through a few questions, at that rate, you were asking me to deal with hundreds of hours worth of trying to get you to understand what I was actually saying. I was not and am not willing to do that. You were appearing to be deliberately obtuse and combative and divisive and that is not an atmosphere that is conducive to conversation. Any time you would like to try that conversation again, slowly, taking one or two points at a time and being respectful and not combative in the conversation, I will be glad to answer your questions. But I simply do not have hundreds of hours to play pitter patter with you if you're being combative and not striving for actual conversation.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, perhaps you were trying to actually converse reasonably, but I'll tell you the truth: It did not seem that way. I'll give it a try sometime if you want to try again.
But that I opted not to get into a hundreds-hour-long dialog with someone who still wouldn't understand my actual points is not evidence that I don't generally answer questions. So, again, I point to my solid record of over a decade of these kinds of conversations and in reality, you can not point to data that supports that I generally DON'T answer questions. It is a falsehood to suggest that and thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Do you understand that?
Repent, friend. There's no shame in admitting you made a mistake, only in digging in your heels and holding on to false claims.
"No, Craig. YOU are making the charge."
Actually, if you carefully read my post, I did not actually make any charge regarding the amount of questions you refuse to answer. I just factually did not make a charge.
YOU, on the other hand, did make a claim. A claim that you assert is supported by "data". I fail to see how anyone could reasonably suggest that I support a "charge" I have not made, while failing to provide that "data" one claims "supports" the claims that actually were made.
"Back it up with data or admit you can't/won't and withdraw the claim. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you want to sit in the role of accuser, you back up the claim."
It seems strange that you demand I "back up" a charge that doesn't exist, while not being able to "back up" your own claims. This strange double standard seems unreasonable to me.
"You say you doubt that I generally answer questions (and for some reason, choose "especially" the last six months), fine, support the charge."
I did. You haven't. I choose the last six months or so because your willingness to answer questions has diminished, while I have been very intentional about answering virtually every question you ask even to the point of answering the same question multiple times.
"I'm not accusing you, Craig, you are accusing me."
You have not been "accusing" me, you have made a claim that you claim is "supported" by "data" which you have not provided support for.
"Support it or admit you can't."
I have, why won't you do what you demand of me?
"Come on, be a man."
Are you suggesting that not providing "data" to "support" ones claim demonstrates a lack of manliness?
"It's okay to admit it when you can't support a charge. Just back down, you're only embarrassing yourself."
You are correct, it's embarrassing when one does not provide "data" so support that claims one makes. You know, like...
"And if, as the data no doubt, supports, I actually do answer questions 95+% of the time..."
So, show me the "data'.
"On at least the first thread in question, you continually (either intentionally or unintentionally) kept misrepresenting my positions and twisting words and we were not getting anywhere trying to deal with a few questions and, in the midst of that, you piled on some DOZENS of questions."
No, I was trying to get you to answer questions in order to get you to clarify your position. The fact that you chose not to answer and allow those questions to pile up is not my problem. But, hey, if you don't have the "data" to support your claims then I guess all you have left is to throw up straw men as fast as you can.
The fact ("supported" by "data") is that in the thread in question you did NOT answer anywhere near 95% of the questions asked. I know you have excuses, that doesn't change the facts.
"So, again, I point to my solid record of over a decade of these kinds of conversations and in reality, you can not point to data that supports that I generally DON'T answer questions. It is a falsehood to suggest that and thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Do you understand that?"
I understand that you have repeatedly made this claim without actually supplying the "data" you claim provides "support" for your claim.
"Perhaps I'm mistaken, perhaps you were trying to actually converse reasonably, but I'll tell you the truth: It did not seem that way. I'll give it a try sometime if you want to try again."
Perhaps the problem is that you continually make assumptions and draw conclusions based on how things subjectively "seem" to you. Perhaps a better strategy would be to avoid basing things on how things subjectively "seem"
"So, again, I point to my solid record of over a decade of these kinds of conversations and in reality, you can not point to data that supports that I generally DON'T answer questions."
Once again, provide some "data' to "support" your claims. I have provided some "data" to support mine. But you seem to think you are exempt from providing "data" to "support" your claims. Simply repeating your claim over and over again, is NOT "data".
"It is a falsehood to suggest that and thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Do you understand that?"
I understand that I provided you with "data" demonstrating that (at least in that one instance) you did not answer 95% of the questions asked. I provided other "data" which you ignored that demonstrates that I do answer your questions. So, at least up to this point, I am the only one who has provided "data", you have not. You have claimed that I do not answer your questions, I have provided ample evidence of the falseness of your claim, while you have provided not to support the claims you have made.
My apologies, then.
When you said, and I quote,
Why is it that when Dan makes this request is a a completely appropriate and rational thing to do, but when I ask the same courtesy of him, he always manages to come up with excuses for not answering?
You were implying that I often/generally don't answer questions. So by all means clarify that isn't what you meant. You DO agree then that I generally - by a vast percentage - answer questions that are asked of me?
Please clarify.
As to your post, I responded directly to your question by saying...
I ask it because there is a history of people not directly answering my questions, Craig. Conversely, I have a solid history of answering questions asked of me. I would be willing to bet that if one took all the questions asked of me and found the number of answers I've given, it would be upwards of 95% of the time that I answer questions. And do so directly.
And if you take my answer for what I actually said, you can agree that if one often does not get direct answers to questions, firmly asking for answers to questions is not unreasonable. Can we agree on that philosophical point?
So, let's see if you can keep up your batting average.
"The data supports the reality of my being one who consistently answers questions."
"And if, as the data no doubt, supports, I actually do answer questions 95+% of the time,..."
"Conversely, I have a solid history of answering questions asked of me."
Did you make the above statements?
Are you aware that in the above statements you have made several claims?
Do you understand that when you claim that the "data supports" something, that it is not unreasonable to be able to provide the "data"?
Do you understand that when you claim that "data supports", that you are saying that the "data" exists?
Do you understand how strange it is that you demand that I support a "charge" I did not make, while you continue to assert that "data" exists and will "support" your claims yet refuse to provide it?
My recent post regarding P-BO's symbolic "gun control" executive orders contained several questions, did you answer 95% of those?
It's interesting that folks like Dan (and Dan himself)frequently talk about wanting to have an adult, respectful, conversation yet here we see an excellent example of someone who shows up, makes unsupported claims then leaves. There's no respect, no dialogue, no grace, no nothing. Just showing up making unsupported claims and just expecting those claims to be accepted simply by virtue of repeating them over and over. I fail to see the value in this behavior and don't understand what would motivate someone to think that this is the way to have a respectful adult conversation.
But hey, some of us apparently are just pretty slow, developmentally and need to be talked to like a four year old. which come to think of it is a pretty mature and grace filled way to respond to those you disagree with.
"And if you take my answer for what I actually said, you can agree that if one often does not get direct answers to questions, firmly asking for answers to questions is not unreasonable. Can we agree on that philosophical point?"
Yes, I can agree that when one chooses not to answer questions that it is appropriate for the questioner to firmly request that the questions be answered. Unfortunately, you see to have a significant degree of difficulty applying the standard you espouse above to yourself when you are on the receiving end of questions. Unfortunately for you, your recent history does not support your increasingly nonsensical claims.
Post a Comment