From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:24 PM
To: Paul Filseth
Subject: Re: disingenuous

> > But if it will make you feel any better
> > -- and will also spare me from further charges of "nasty" and
> > "unacceptable" behavior --, I will from now on first question your
> > reasoning skills before questioning your motives. :-)
> 
> Hey, that's the first sign you're willing to change any of the
> practices that make you so annoying.

If you have constructive advice for how I can be a better
debater, I'd be eager for you to tell me precisely what 
these practices are, give examples of them, and explain to me 
why they are annoying.

> Is that just an offer to me,
> or will you offer everyone you disagree with the same courtesy?

As I assumed was clear from my previous sentence (which you deleted),
it applies primarily to you because you "had (at least until 
recently ;-) the best track record of reasoning here on a.a.m.". 
That is, people with lesser track records were already getting my 
presumption of faulty reasoning.

> So you'll probably go right on thinking I'm
> disingenuous even if you don't say it

Again: I never said or believed you were disingenuous.  I said
that a particular statement of yours "seemed disingenuous", and
so I was trying to explore the meaning and implications of it.
Those efforts were (and remain) stymied by your indignation 
filibuster.

However, I really do now think less of your reasoning skills than 
I did before. Are you refusing to believe my self-report 
here?  How would such refusal be any different than an accusation
of disingenuousness?

> I didn't mean to suggest you changed my meaning intentionally, 
> just with the care and logic you so
> often show toward what other people say.

Is habitual (but uninentional?) carelessness and illogic toward 
others' words perhaps one of the practices that allegedly makes me 
annoying? Please provide details and examples if you have the
time and interest in improving my debating skills.  If not,
then please refrain from such snide generalizations.

> What you called "The Filseth Standard" had a substantive insertion
> and an emphasis change authored by you.  You didn't have to put 
> them in.

Again: any alteration you perceived was unintentional.
What I called "The Filseth Standard" was my way of invoking a
philosophical point about conceptual partitioning and clarity that
is as old as Plato's Chair. It turned out that your statement I 
quoted about "partitioning" and "clarity" was an attempt by you 
to make a different point, but I didn't know that because when 
I asked you about it (in a more careful way that apparantly still 
didn't live up to your standards of civility), you didn't reply. 
If you want your statements never to be misunderstood, you 
might consider answering questions about them.

And before complaining about my civility in the future, 
please ruminate on a sampling of your own uncivil remarks that 
I've let slide:

  [..] doesn't mean it isn't mush when it slops onto my table.

  Are you trying to be condescending?  If so, try first reaching 
  a position of superiority.

  [..] your inference about what [I] think is as usual invalid.

  You infer falsely, as usual.

  [..] you're prone to irrational suspicions

  [..] the Holtz Standard for when to put words in other
  people's mouths?

  [..] how "exist" works in your idiolect [..]

  You don't get to be the disingenuousness police, hauling 
  people in front of your court to explain themselves, because 
  you aren't good enough at it.

  [..] the things you do that make talking to you pointless.

  [..] I'll still be talking to a brick wall.

-- 
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net