On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:55:24 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:47:06 GMT, Bryan Derksen
><bryan.derksen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Wildepad wrote:
>>> Because of that, questioning the assumptions is an unwelcome and
>>> unnecessary distraction.
>>It's going to happen anyway because this is rec.arts.sf.science and not
>>your own personal focus group that you can set the rules for.
>Absolutely true, but that doesn't make it pleasant. It's like going to
>have your teeth cleaned and ending up having a root canal.
And here's the critical point, you selfish bastard. You've just described
the feeling every single one of us here has, when we read any post you
ever make to this newsgroup except possibly the very first post you make
in a new thread.
>Among my (many?) shortcomings is a low tolerance for people who attack
>for the sake of attack and my revulsion at the idea of posting a
>lengthy treatise on the research I did on an 'assumption' before
>including it in a scenario.
We attack, for the sake of chasing off the guy who insists on giving us
each an unending series of unwanted intellectual root canals.
>>> In other cases, I am interested in continuing the conversation for as
>>> long as it takes to get a productive answer.
>>
>>Frankly, I think you mean "as long as it takes to get the answer I
>>want." This is not a productive use of debate.
>
>Productive, to me, is an answer which shows that the responder
>understood the premise and is willing to apply a bit of suspension of
>disbelief to place themselves in the protag's position.
Productive, to the rest of us, means creating an enjoyable experience,
*for us*. Engaging in any discussion straightjacketed by your detailed
and arbitrary restrictions, is not enjoyable for us. It does not produce
anything that we value.
If it produces something that *you* value, if indeed it is the only thing
that is not root-canal-unbearably-painful to you, then you're in a bit of
a pickle. Because we are *not* going to undergo what is to *us* a very
unpleasant experience, just to "produce" a thing that is *only* of value
to *you*.
And understand this very clearly: the rigidly-constrained discussions of
arbitrary scenarios that you seem to want, are only of value to you. They
do not entertain us, they do not interest us, the are of no value to us,
and they annoy us greatly.
So, I'm pretty sure we're not going to do that. Not unless you give us a
much better reason than you have so far. Otherwise, we'll just keep on
doing what it is that we enjoy, and if that's painful to you, then this
may not be the place for you to hang out.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
