Voted down vigorously. If you can’t make the effort to make yourself understood, STFU.
It should be no surprise that this outburst made me far more inclined to view the grandparent in a positive light. In this case the actual content of Will’s comment seems easy to understand. Given Peterdjones aggressive use of his own incomprehention Will was rather more patient than he could have been. He could have linking to a wikipedia article on the subject so that he could get a grasp of the basics.
Will was rather more patient than he could have been.
Rather less careful, I would say. He failed to notice the typo above until nsheperd pointed it out—the original source of the confusion. And then later he began a comment with:
No, this is not the case. You have to cleverly choose B.
I have no idea at all what “is not the case”. And I also don’t know when anyone was offered the opportunity to cleverly choose B.
Will’s description of his own limited motivation to communicate is the only portion of this thread which is crystal clear.
Yes, by working pretty hard, I was able to ignore the initial typo and to anticipate the explanation of A, B, and C. As I point out elsewhere on this thread, I have some objections to the scenario (as leaving out some details important to deontologists). Perhaps PeterDJones had similar objections. Please notice that neither of us could object to Will’s A-B-C story until it was actually spelled out. And Will resisted making the effort of spelling it out far too long.
My “STFU” was rude. But sometimes rudeness is appropriate.
It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”. (Or even the familiar “Deontologists would not lie under any circumstances, even to save a lfie”).
It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”.
That does not appear to be the case. Those are examples of other things that he could have said which would provide a more convenient target for your reply. Assuming you refer to Will_Sawin, that is.
It should be no surprise that this outburst made me far more inclined to view the grandparent in a positive light. In this case the actual content of Will’s comment seems easy to understand. Given Peterdjones aggressive use of his own incomprehention Will was rather more patient than he could have been. He could have linking to a wikipedia article on the subject so that he could get a grasp of the basics.
Rather less careful, I would say. He failed to notice the typo above until nsheperd pointed it out—the original source of the confusion. And then later he began a comment with:
I have no idea at all what “is not the case”. And I also don’t know when anyone was offered the opportunity to cleverly choose B.
Will’s description of his own limited motivation to communicate is the only portion of this thread which is crystal clear.
Yes, by working pretty hard, I was able to ignore the initial typo and to anticipate the explanation of A, B, and C. As I point out elsewhere on this thread, I have some objections to the scenario (as leaving out some details important to deontologists). Perhaps PeterDJones had similar objections. Please notice that neither of us could object to Will’s A-B-C story until it was actually spelled out. And Will resisted making the effort of spelling it out far too long.
My “STFU” was rude. But sometimes rudeness is appropriate.
It seems to me the substance of Mr Savin’s objection could have been expressed more briefly and clearly as “Deontologists would not steal under any circumstances”. (Or even the familiar “Deontologists would not lie under any circumstances, even to save a lfie”).
That does not appear to be the case. Those are examples of other things that he could have said which would provide a more convenient target for your reply. Assuming you refer to Will_Sawin, that is.