You are my commenting senior, and I understand you want a high standard—Still, I’m very positive that intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators, and that my argument is a valid one—So I’m content with my level of research in the context of this post. I understand if you might disagree with my level of skill, but I hope you can have some leniency.
In the future, I might want to rise to a different level of discernment. To check the small details more, and try to achieve the level of Commentator Enlightenment you have. To have the power to nitpick posts and comments to Death, like you’re able to, or also give them the extra flair that lets them shine—or both. I must admit, I’m far from that level, But since you have made basically 5432.1% more comments than me, I believe I might rise to the occasion in time. Remember that all your comments to me are a chance to reflect on myself, and to choose to be better, and I am grateful you give me some attention. Thank you.
I’m very positive that intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators, and that my argument is a valid one
That’s as may be. My point was simply that, in support of your argument, you cited as a source as making a claim that it did not, in fact, make; instead, the source made an importantly different claim. The record must be corrected on the facts. Now it has been.
So I’m content with my level of research in the context of this post.
That is, of course, your business. What is relevant in the context of public discussion is that you’re saying “this is what’s true; I offer no evidence, except that my assurance that I’ve researched this”.
Such a position is not inherently problematic, as long as you make it clear that that’s what you’re saying.
What is problematic is erroneous factual claims, erroneously quoting sources, etc. Hence, such errors ought to be corrected, as I have done. Corrections in such cases benefit us all, yourself included.
I understand if you might disagree with my level of skill, but I hope you can have some leniency.
Such concepts as “skill” and “leniency” are totally irrelevant here. The facts are what matter. We must get the facts right if we’re to have any hope of drawing any correct conclusions and taking any useful actions.
As far as the question of what is, or is not, “nitpicking”, which details are “small”, etc., this old comment of mine may be of some interest.
Finally, returning to your object-level claim—
intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators
—by my admittedly vague recollection of other rape-related statistics that I’ve seen, I believe that you are correct. I do not have references handy, and so I am not very certain of this; but I would certainly be surprised if this turned out to be false.
Of course, the exact numbers (to an accuracy of, at the least, ±5%) do matter, so if I were to make an argument on the basis of this tendency, I’d certainly want some concrete data. (Which attitude is complicated by the difficulty of finding reliable and unbiased data in this domain.)
Yes, believe nothing else.I am eternally grateful for your foresight and exemplary behavior.
What I meant is that as such a skilled senior, I should treat you as a moderator, and invoking leniency is simply an expression of the fact that even at my best behavior, with the outmost of care, vigilance and decorum, it wouldn’t be fair to you to compare my own efforts and skill to yours. Moreover, that I hope that you will allow me the chance to grow and improve side by side with you, even when that means sometimes showing me the ropes or picking up the slack. Of course, I will not let your effort go unnoticed or unseen, as I value them greatly, and even if they aren’t statistical facts—I hope you can still feel the heartfelt emotions behind my words.
I’m glad you have done this service to us all—and as such I feel really, really hesitant to do the whole community the disservice of making it go unacknowledged, or worse, add to the confusion by changing my former comment—when it shows my factual level of competence—and your higher-level effort of improving on it.
I mean, it is beyond terrible that this happens in the first place, don’t you agree? Some facts are simply so awful, that I wonder not only at the toughness and hardness of the people collecting them, but if it is right of me, or anyone, to speak about this so haphazardly. Still, finding the truth is important, and I cheer for your monumental dedication to doing things correctly and by the book—even going so far as gracefully improving things—without going overboard. Again, thank you.
I agree, for now it seems I am simply at the level of uncertainty and approximations—but I can’t give up improving by being passive and unconfident, lest I stay in that space forever without improvement. And you saying that I am correct, is simply the highest praise. I’m not quite worthy, but I’ll take it :)
Said and I have some banter going on, but I genuinely value their feedback, and take it seriously into consideration—Humor just helps me to learn things better, and is my way of showing my will to grow and improve—but also my current state of acceptance and honesty. And Said can talk for themselves, but I don’t feel like they are trying to be passive-aggressive towards me in any way.
I’m not familiar with you, however. If you just didn’t understand, that is fine—even though I would have preferred you just ask either of us instead of posting a no-context comment randomly stating ‘This is a passive-aggressive attack[...]’.
Excessively praising or deferring to someone for vague and/or trivial things while opposing him on everything concrete is a form of attack that pretends not to be one.
Hello Said!
You are my commenting senior, and I understand you want a high standard—Still, I’m very positive that intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators, and that my argument is a valid one—So I’m content with my level of research in the context of this post. I understand if you might disagree with my level of skill, but I hope you can have some leniency.
In the future, I might want to rise to a different level of discernment. To check the small details more, and try to achieve the level of Commentator Enlightenment you have. To have the power to nitpick posts and comments to Death, like you’re able to, or also give them the extra flair that lets them shine—or both.
I must admit, I’m far from that level, But since you have made basically 5432.1% more comments than me, I believe I might rise to the occasion in time.
Remember that all your comments to me are a chance to reflect on myself, and to choose to be better, and I am grateful you give me some attention.
Thank you.
All the best to you,
Caerulea-Lawrence
That’s as may be. My point was simply that, in support of your argument, you cited as a source as making a claim that it did not, in fact, make; instead, the source made an importantly different claim. The record must be corrected on the facts. Now it has been.
That is, of course, your business. What is relevant in the context of public discussion is that you’re saying “this is what’s true; I offer no evidence, except that my assurance that I’ve researched this”.
Such a position is not inherently problematic, as long as you make it clear that that’s what you’re saying.
What is problematic is erroneous factual claims, erroneously quoting sources, etc. Hence, such errors ought to be corrected, as I have done. Corrections in such cases benefit us all, yourself included.
Such concepts as “skill” and “leniency” are totally irrelevant here. The facts are what matter. We must get the facts right if we’re to have any hope of drawing any correct conclusions and taking any useful actions.
As far as the question of what is, or is not, “nitpicking”, which details are “small”, etc., this old comment of mine may be of some interest.
Finally, returning to your object-level claim—
—by my admittedly vague recollection of other rape-related statistics that I’ve seen, I believe that you are correct. I do not have references handy, and so I am not very certain of this; but I would certainly be surprised if this turned out to be false.
Of course, the exact numbers (to an accuracy of, at the least, ±5%) do matter, so if I were to make an argument on the basis of this tendency, I’d certainly want some concrete data. (Which attitude is complicated by the difficulty of finding reliable and unbiased data in this domain.)
Hello again Said,
Yes, believe nothing else. I am eternally grateful for your foresight and exemplary behavior.
What I meant is that as such a skilled senior, I should treat you as a moderator, and invoking leniency is simply an expression of the fact that even at my best behavior, with the outmost of care, vigilance and decorum, it wouldn’t be fair to you to compare my own efforts and skill to yours. Moreover, that I hope that you will allow me the chance to grow and improve side by side with you, even when that means sometimes showing me the ropes or picking up the slack. Of course, I will not let your effort go unnoticed or unseen, as I value them greatly, and even if they aren’t statistical facts—I hope you can still feel the heartfelt emotions behind my words.
I’m glad you have done this service to us all—and as such I feel really, really hesitant to do the whole community the disservice of making it go unacknowledged, or worse, add to the confusion by changing my former comment—when it shows my factual level of competence—and your higher-level effort of improving on it.
I mean, it is beyond terrible that this happens in the first place, don’t you agree? Some facts are simply so awful, that I wonder not only at the toughness and hardness of the people collecting them, but if it is right of me, or anyone, to speak about this so haphazardly.
Still, finding the truth is important, and I cheer for your monumental dedication to doing things correctly and by the book—even going so far as gracefully improving things—without going overboard. Again, thank you.
I agree, for now it seems I am simply at the level of uncertainty and approximations—but I can’t give up improving by being passive and unconfident, lest I stay in that space forever without improvement. And you saying that I am correct, is simply the highest praise. I’m not quite worthy, but I’ll take it :)
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
This is a passive-aggressive attack and we are better off without such things.
Hello Jiro,
Said and I have some banter going on, but I genuinely value their feedback, and take it seriously into consideration—Humor just helps me to learn things better, and is my way of showing my will to grow and improve—but also my current state of acceptance and honesty. And Said can talk for themselves, but I don’t feel like they are trying to be passive-aggressive towards me in any way.
I’m not familiar with you, however. If you just didn’t understand, that is fine—even though I would have preferred you just ask either of us instead of posting a no-context comment randomly stating ‘This is a passive-aggressive attack[...]’.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Excessively praising or deferring to someone for vague and/or trivial things while opposing him on everything concrete is a form of attack that pretends not to be one.