If you do not want to be rude, do not be rude. You were. Note that I never used such namecalling in any of my posts, even when *I* felt vexed. By acting up like this, it's hardly making a good case for lecturing others on being 'impolite'. I thought we both agreed that a minimum of decorum and 'remaining civil' is needed, and unless you want to use the euphemism of it being 'direct' again, I strongly suggest you keep your manners.justincase wrote:Are you an idiot? (sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously, do you not understand the passage of time? )
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13390&start=75#p112129 (where I tried to follow your logic and point out the fallacies in most sections of your post) was posted BEFORE viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13390&p=112161#p112161 where you stated that you "focus on the debate and the arguments", which told me that you're not focusing on helping people, at which point I stopped fully reading your long posts.
Again I skimmed your post, and you must either have an extremely low ability to understand, or you're intentionally misinterpreting much of what I've said.
Much of what you posted on that thread (and several others as well) did not qualify (in the eyes of someone who has personal experience with the subject matter) as "rational arguments", so my point about that specific 'debate' being pointless still stands, and the bit about my current posts being long is moot as I'm not elaborating on much, and am keeping them within one page of screen-real-estate (on a 1024x768 monitor).
And my reason for posting again after you have is twofold, partly I'd like to help you understand what you're doing wrong so you can fix it, and (now more important to me) I want the end of the last post on this thread to be directly asking crackez for a comment regarding the Greek translation, as I doubt that he/she is likely to read all of the posts between his/her last post on this thread and the most recent one fully.
@crackez: How is the Greek/Ελληνικά translation coming?
You seem oblivious to the fact a debate does not stop after 2 posts - at least this one did not, seen that you responded to it until now. Therefore, had you read what I wrote, you should have grasped the context in which I say that I focus on the arguments in the debate, namely; as opposed to focus on the person; aka, being personal about something. (This in regard to your posts related to me/my posts, obviously). I also explained (already) in one of the longer posts (you didn't read), why your 'hel'p was irrelevant to what I was pointing out. This was the whole 'barking up the wrong tree' argument. One must almost presume a lack of comprehensive reading ability, if you thought my first post (to z98) was about anything else than pointing out ways of doing things better organisational wise, and giving critique on things that were currently not working well. In as far as one responded to those points, I gauged the value of the (counter)arguments given. In any debate, this is of importance. If you failed to note that, already at that time, it wasn't directly related to the greek translation or about asking me for your 'help' in the sense that you delivered it, than that is your fault, not mine. I consider it pretty obvious I never deviated from my original points, already when I was talking to z98 (thus, long before any of the debate with you started), so if you think it was something else - you often seem to do -, then you were in the wrong.
Besides, you continued the conversation afterwards (you still do). Thus complaining you stopped reading, but instead 'skimmed' it, does nothing to refute what I said earlier, since *tha*t is exactly what you said you did and what I alluded at. You clearly read (or skimmed) my last posts too and half-answered them, thus you continued the debate, and for more than '6 sentences', which was the point is was making: whether you deny it or not, you continue(d) the debate, and not only with short, diminutive posts. The effort you make to refute such obvious things (the posts are there, after all), is astonishing. But, soit, that is, after all, just a matter of some small contradiction on your part, and not what it was about in that particular post. I have said many, many times now - thus, making it wilfully on your part - that if you quote me, you should place the full quote if you want to be intellectually honest. At least when you could and should know the interpretation one gives to it may differ from the original context, as I have already pointed out to you. Yet, here you do it again, and continue to try to invoke another meaning with a half-quote (and thus a deliberate way of misquoting it). What I said was not "I focus on the debate and the arguments", point. Which you now try to portray as "not wanting to help people" - which, in the debate with you, wasn't the case anyhow, or did you need help? What I said was this: "I focus on the debate and the arguments, nor the person, so I seldom bare any grudges whatsoever." Clearly, the meaning is apparent in this context, namely, that I do not 'play on the man' (ad hominem), but on the arguments given, it is NOT what you make of it by only half quoting it (that I don't want to help others or be helped), and the fact you did so two times on a row, even when I already pointed this out, seems to indicate you're being wilfully obtuse in the best case, and rather of ill-will in the worst. Complaining about that sentence/quote, is, in fact, indicating that you think not being ad hominem is not a good thing, which is absurd. But you don't even do that; you're complaining about something that I did not even say (in that context). You put a different meaning in it than what it was used in, and constantly only half-quote it to sustain the fallacy. (I find that pretty vexing too, but you do not see me calling you an idiot.) Because that is what it is: it's an example of a straw-man fallacy. And of course I value arguments and reasonings in the debate: only fools would not. But you always using only half my quote is indicative you know it has nothing to do with what you claim it is about. It should have told you: "it means not becoming personal", if you had done any effort to read or understand it. And now you're basing a whole reasoning and argument on it, because you didn't bother to read it. Or more likely, because you know it's not about what you have interpreted it to mean. Maybe it would have been better to read my posts instead of 'skimming' them if you answer, after all.
But, as you again skimmed my posts, no doubt a lot of nuance will have been lost to you again as well. As for 'not qualifying': actually, many years ago, before my current work, I've taught 'Logica' (aka, the formal rules of reasoning) in the university of my birth-city, but I seldom make a point of this - and I wouldn't have if you hadn't brought it up neither- since an appeal to authority never makes for a strong argument. Regardless: every logical assertion or argument is not a subject to a popularity poll, but is inherently subject to the internal logica it uses. Aka: something is logical or not, there is no such thing as 'my' or 'your' logic. If, as you say, what I said is not logical or rational, it should have been easy to demonstrate the fallacies and contradictions in it, and clearly show where the logic faltered. Alas, you did no such thing. Yes, you have tried to come up with counterarguments, but I refuted them quite easily in my posts after yours. Many of the (counter)arguments you gave were actually irrelevant in the first place, in regard to the subject at hand (which you often seem to think is bout something else - which is probably due to you not reading much of it, or at least not attentively).
It's also very convenient to arbitrarily decide - especially in ones' own advantage - when a post is long, and when not. And when one is 'elaborating on much' and when not. And what is a good reason to post again, and what not. (btw, you already said you had 'given up' on that, so suddenly coming up with it as a reason is not very convincing as an argument. Also, I already told you, you totally miss the point of my post if you think you provided help in this particular matter, since what you offered was irrelevant to what I was saying. Maybe you should read up on it after all, before continuing this same argument over and over again?) C'mon: if you're not going to accept nor use the principle of reciprocity of argumentation, there is no way one can have a logical debate, and one shouldn't try to lecture someone in that regard neither. As for your last reason, well, let me ask exactly the same myself, then, so you do not need to use that 'reason' anymore neither.
@crackez: How is the Greek/Ελληνικά translation coming?