Asides from that yes they obviously have different reputations and history, and that your comment isn't a response to my comment: Thomas could you please either apologise or disengage as discussed earlier? Thanks.
Joachim, I apologize for being snippy in my comment. It was late at night and I should have just gone to bed. Lets agree to disagree on the level of drift in the discussion and agree that I could have been much more civil in my reply.
I didn't want to not reply but I also didn't want to be swept into a potentially fraught internet argument. So, I tried to edit my comment as a middle ground, but it looks like I can't, I guess there must be a timeout. If I could edit it, I'd add the following:
"I should point out that I wasn't personally involved, haven't looked into it in detail, and that there are many different perspectives that should be considered."
Thanks. That was a lot of time spent; I appreciate your commitment to inquiry/discovery.
I still struggle with what I see as a Thomas fighting a war of technicalities to avoid the actual point, and I tried to leave significant rope to allow his annoyances. And I don't K ow how to walk back what I still feel like is an injustice that hurts the truth so badly, don't see how temperance can be found against this. But I get my post's polarization better and see how the room is so happy to stick to Thomas here.
Thank you for your comment, but as the recipient of the two comments, I did not take them as name-calling but as an indication that my comments may have been less than succinct or logical and needed clarification, which I hope I have achieved in my response.
I didn't express an opinion there as you seemingly assumed. I just stated that it ended up becoming controversial and this can be seen by referring to the documents and historical records of the meetings discussing the subject. One could see what I'm talking about if they at least skim through the blog post I linked to in my comment.
Also, controversy is not a comparative matter (and this one indeed is an opinion).
> I'm talking about one, and you are talking about the other. I'm discussing the point raised in the original submission. You aren't, except insofar as they are not entirely unrelated, as I remark above.
He is not responding to your comment. He is responding to edanm, who is discussing exactly what jpd is discussing.
The editing clock has expired on my post above. I appreciate your point which was why I abstracted things into general terms - I still feel the qualitative difference is there, not because of specific history or PC-ness.
It's like if I was mad for some reason (eg my zero karma above) and responded by flaming you vs. simply not answering.
No worries if you didn't catch that I was the same person.
Your catch proves that issue is not remotely settled, and to my mind, indicates that more rigorous counsel with historians will only add depth to debate, rather than resolve it.
You didn't stand behind your original comment or you wouldn't have deleted it. You are only standing behind what you claim your comment said. However now no one can actually judge whether those are the same or not.
Either way, the end result is that both of us look like idiots continuing to argue over this. That is why it is pointless to continue.
I agree a discussion of a kind is occurring. My reply was specific to the comment it addressed, in that, the comment did not fully engage with my initial comment and instead cherry picked one part of it. A more fully formed response, much like yours, wouldn't have elicited my above response. Context.
That's fine, and it's your prerogative, surely. However you must notice there is arbitrary antagonism throughout the thread to which I am responding, not intending to 'inflame' however much that may have been the case and I'm sorry for that.
No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences.
I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for any upset caused in that regard.
You can’t call out the other guy for not acknowledging your points and then not acknowledge mine. Your points aren’t coherent, so lay them out better if you want people to engage. They other person isn’t malicious, they just don’t see you as commenting in good faith if we all know you aren’t an expert but are commenting (rather hostilely) as if you are one.
I agree with you. I did not mean that the former comment is acceptable. Both comments are not unacceptable. I chose the lower comment to reply to. That might have given that impression. But I find speculation for either sides to be problems. Nobody should have to tip toe around. A good response to the speculation in upper comment could have been to point out that it is speculation and unfounded, not make more speculations!
reply