Someone disagreeing with other people and explaining why he thinks they are wrong is not “green ink”—unless that individual is behaving in a crazy fashion.
I don’t think anyone has any evidence that my behaviour is anything other than rational and sane in this case. At any rate, so far no such evidence has been presented AFAICS. So: I think “green ink” is a fairly clear mis-characterisation.
No, green ink covers a much wider span of writing than that. And honestly, no matter what disagreements you find yourself having with a group of people, and this would include circumstances where you were the only rationalist in a room full of crystal healers, you should never find yourself uttering the phrase “I am someone not in the thrall of the prevailing reality distortion field”.
I think that is just a difference of personalities.
If I am in a region where there’s a reality distortion field in action, I don’t necessarily avoid pointing that out for the sake of everyone’s feelings—or for some other reason.
That would let the participants continue in their trance—and that might not be good for them, or others they interact with.
You can point something out, but it is an act of petty sabotage to repeat the same statements over and over again with no apparent effect but to irritation of the public. Even if you are in fact right, and the other guys are lunatics.
I have nothing to say at the moment regarding your actual argumentation upthread—what I am criticizing is your reaction to the downvoting et seq. I don’t care what you call it: stop.
You are acting as if you are obviously correct. That is true far less often than you suppose. If you are not obviously correct, retaliating against the people who attacked you is counterproductive. Better is to expand your analysis or drop the subject altogether.
You choose to perpetuate the cycle. OK, then, I will drop out first. This thread has been dragged into the gutter—and I am not interested in following it down there. Bye.
I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink makes it pretty clear that green ink is barely-coherent rambling coming from nutcases.
Someone disagreeing with other people and explaining why he thinks they are wrong is not “green ink”—unless that individual is behaving in a crazy fashion.
I don’t think anyone has any evidence that my behaviour is anything other than rational and sane in this case. At any rate, so far no such evidence has been presented AFAICS. So: I think “green ink” is a fairly clear mis-characterisation.
No, green ink covers a much wider span of writing than that. And honestly, no matter what disagreements you find yourself having with a group of people, and this would include circumstances where you were the only rationalist in a room full of crystal healers, you should never find yourself uttering the phrase “I am someone not in the thrall of the prevailing reality distortion field”.
Um—why not?
I think that is just a difference of personalities.
If I am in a region where there’s a reality distortion field in action, I don’t necessarily avoid pointing that out for the sake of everyone’s feelings—or for some other reason.
That would let the participants continue in their trance—and that might not be good for them, or others they interact with.
You can point something out, but it is an act of petty sabotage to repeat the same statements over and over again with no apparent effect but to irritation of the public. Even if you are in fact right, and the other guys are lunatics.
Hi, Vladimir! I don’t know what you are talking about, why you are bothering to say it—and nor do I much care.
I have nothing to say at the moment regarding your actual argumentation upthread—what I am criticizing is your reaction to the downvoting et seq. I don’t care what you call it: stop.
What was wrong with that?
Someone asked me why I was being downvoted.
I gave them my best hypothesis.
You want me to lie? You think my hypothesis was inaccurate? What exactly is the problem you have?
On the other hand, if you genuinely want me to stop defending my actions, it would help if people first stop attacking them—perhaps starting with you.
You are acting as if you are obviously correct. That is true far less often than you suppose. If you are not obviously correct, retaliating against the people who attacked you is counterproductive. Better is to expand your analysis or drop the subject altogether.
You choose to perpetuate the cycle. OK, then, I will drop out first. This thread has been dragged into the gutter—and I am not interested in following it down there. Bye.