rspkers
Member
- Sep 20, 2017
- 260
- 1,821
- 365
I'm very much used to interjection. Third party input is very useful when it's within the context of the discussion, of which yours is not. External ideas are more than welcome, but yours isn't an idea, it's a criticism of which makes no sense within the context of that conversation. Sorry, but a single point is certainly not what I've gathered from your reply. Again, most of what you've said just doesn't apply to what I said to that guy, and I stated as such. I'd call it lukewarm.It seems you are not used to a third-party's input on a topic, which my post was (as opposed to jumping in your 2-way dialogue and making it a 3-way).
I had read your thread but thanks for the suggestion. Again, I didn't aim to join the conversation, only to provide an external idea as food for thought.
My post had only one point, illustrated by a thought process going through its complexities. It appears it failed to be clear enough to your eyes, the reason for which can be varied.
At this stage all I feel I can say is that if I was to write a piece talking about the fact there is such a thing as 'temperature', and I'd illustrate it by saying certain things are 'cold', others are 'hot'. I would not be 'all over the place', neither would I be 'arguing multiple points' nor contradicting myself. I'd only be making one single point.
Apologies if I wasted your time, please ignore my post and I'll leave you two back to your conversation.
I'd add a bottom line here, but others have already done so, which is why I suggested looking at their comments as they illustrate my point quite well. Thing is, you took my statement out of context and that's fine. The problem with that is that if you're going to single out something I said and misconstrue it to imply I mean something else, and that as a result, others can say the same thing about it, expect a reply pointing out why that's wrong. Sure, others can think exactly what you said, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It just isn't the point I was making, and I think I've explained that. Chalking everything up to being adverse to discussion not only makes no sense considering a reply was given, with constructive argument, but doesn't address any of the arguments that were made. Take care.
Last edited: