In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- Location: decentralized
misterpessimistic: The problem, Mad, is that you frame this as me not wanting discussion...but it is actually that any discussions we have had have never produced anything beneficial to me and end up in angst.It seems to me that if you did want a discussion, you'd keep trying to make it work, even if it hasn't in the past. I'm trying to be civil here and encourage discussion. If you're not doing the same, how am I to interpret that?Reading your first post on Gould's intro pisses me off...because all you are doing is trying to equate debunking psudo-science with religion.Hmm. Here's the problem with my promising not to comment. Once you start making assumptions about what I've already written, there's not much I can do to defend myself or clarify what I was trying to do when I wrote my original posts. But a promise is a promise. No arguments here.Anyway...you see where this will lead...so I ask: How can we/I proceed without this ending up in a mess again?It's hard to tell when you're being rhetorical and when you're really looking for a response. I'll assume here that you really want me to answer. And I guess the answer all depends on the question of how things ended up "in a mess" in the past. Are we just trying to avoid pissing you off? If that's it, then the answer is probably not carry on a discussion at all, since you never seem happy with what I say unless we happen to agree. Are we trying to avoid misunderstanding one another? If so, then I think we just have to take it more slowly and not assume that we always know what the other person means. Are we trying to come to some agreement? I think that's pretty unlikely, but it never hurts to try.