Posted by Shade
(here)
"Screaming"? That is a purely subjective interpretation of my or anyone's posts - volume is not included in a post. If you interpreted my posts as screaming that is your subjective experience of them 100%. Words on a
page do not have volume, that is something you add to a post yourself. And as for deliberate attempt at intimidation? That again is your personal interpretation. What I do is argue, how you interpret that tone or volume really is your subjective experience of it because there are many different ways to read a thing and the way you read it does
not make your interpretation of it right.
You have totally and 100% assumed that every single instance of the word bullsh*t must be screamed because that is how the word exists in all its forms? Quite
obviously it is not true that the word bullsh*t comes with the necessary condition that it is shouted. Do not confuse strength with volume.
They are two different things.
And so you find it once again within your time and effort to write a large post telling me off for my behaviour - which is what you have done again... calling my post the verbally loaded 'rant'.. and yet it's ok for two members of this thread to have falsely accused me of being a paid secret service operative? That's ok though.. oh I see.
And what I would say to you, again, is that how you read my tone is your subjective experience. I know that another poster on this thread does not find my posts disrespectful in tone or measure as certainty, because they told me, and yet they are reading the same posts as you. And I too, know very well the tone I used in writing them and I will tell you now - I am far too mature to 'shout' - you assume to know my tone and you assume to know my volume. That, panopticon is an
assumption. "Screaming" "bullsh*t"?? excuse me? And please, pray tell, how exactly did you deduce that my volume was screaming? What proof and argument can you offer other than your complete and utter assumptions?
none. other than your experience of the word bullsh*t and your assumptions of my tone and intent. The tone you read in a post is very much a reflection of how your own mind works, especially highlighted by the fact that other people around you do not read it in the same way and also as the writer I know for a fact that you are mistaken.
And as for respectful - you assuming to know my volume or my tone (which is in your mind not my post) - something you cannot possible know, and then judging me for it - well in my personal opinion that is not respectful or rather what I would say is it is not what I would deem 'correct behaviour', because it is not based on correct
things or premises. But you know what? Because I recognise that as a personal interpretation and is subjective, that judgement is nothing to DO with you. What I understand it as is a part of my
own methodology - I see your behaviour and methodology as incorrect as in that isn't how I would behave, personally. It is not my place however, to place that judgement upon
you. And as for "rant" - my hand is heavy, that is the way I am, and that may not be something you come across every day. I argue powerfully and my roots are deep, and I will say again that shouting is NOT my style. I don't shout - I speak with purpose and I speak with strength. Do not confuse the two. Greater resolution is required than a 'just chuck her in the same category as other people with strong voices', or 'it's a swear word therefore must be screamed'. People are much more rich and varied than that.
I am an opinionated person; i have strong opinions on things. I have always been this way but it is definitely something that is part and parcel of the scientific world, especially in peer review. You have a case and you argue for it. The debating in science and academia in general is heavy going, but, we understand that this is the path to discovering the truth of a thing, or at least its errors. You knock and take your knocks with as good grace as possible but it is known that that's the way to discovery. It's what makes science so powerful. Perhaps this is a case of me having brought my heavy style from the peer review ring into here - but rather than complain that the game has gotten too strong, perhaps see it as an opportunity to lift your game. I could not argue as strongly, but then who would that serve? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, Nietzsche said. And indeed what criticism is true and hurts and wounds you... after the fires have cleansed your being... only the truth remains. My fire burns strong and I will not apologise for that. I love myself as I am and for who I am in totality, and my style - as old and craggy and hard and wise and beautiful and strange as it is - I appreciate it for all it has brought me and continues to. Life enjoys its freedom to exist and express how it wants to. I celebrate that in my life.
And please - if you are going to 'charge' me with something panopticon, make a proper case. Other than your completely subjective addition of volume to my posts, what exactly is your argument for it being 'clearly meant to intimidate'. How is that fact clear, in a way that is
independent of your subjective assumptions of tone and volume? And how is it that a post which is clearly meant to intimidate one in which the poster has openly and honestly mentioned their own mental illness? Gee that's certainly a way to paint a picture intended to intimidate... here just let me clearly be open about my own weaknesses...
And please by all means regard my questions as rhetorical. This conversation is making me feel like a 20 year old marriage.
No.. really... they are rhetorical.. because in all honesty, this conversation is over.
I'm off to the pub with the boys.
My words come from deep in my soul, from deep in the Earth and from deep into time. And instead of wanting to tame and cut down every piece of wilderness you come upon, how about instead just appreciating it for what it is. The need to tame everything out of fear is one of the reasons so little wilderness is left on the Earth. Your thoughts and maya may skip over the silent depths and limitless mystery of it, but do not destroy out of fear, what you do not understand or misunderstand, just to make yourself feel illusionarily safe or illusionarily right. If, however, you truly understand a thing, and want to argue for something being truly right or wrong then go for it - that is the mechanic of actual change and progression in theory and knowledge and without it we would never grow at all. In beauty and life, mystery is essential. And in peace and silence, wisdom minds not.
Re: The Real Builders of the Pyramids
Reply With Quote
.
Bookmarks