Thou shalt not discuss competence: shoot the messenger

[khayyam]

All you see are written words. They are naked. You get absolutely no emotional hints you would normally get in direct communication through emphasis, expression, pitch of the others voice or facial expression. Only what you make up in your head. And that is only your emotion that has nothing to do (at least in most cases) with what the original author felt while writing the words you read.

Yamakuzure ... except that there is no such thing as "direct communication", even such "emotional hints" are interpreted (and so indirect). All communication (and thought) is in the form of signs, and while emotion may be conveyed with signs/language, its not a necessary component of it (in fact, its mostly noise).

Did they write with a smug sneer on their face? Or with furrowed brows? Did they grin or looked sadden? You'd never know.

... nor what they ate for breakfast, but all of that is outside of meaning anyhow, so there is absolutely no reason to know.

Please consider, that the following sentence has seven different meanings, depending on which word you emphasize: "I never said she stole my money"

Actually, no, inflection may give some clue as to the speakers intent, but its meaning is structured by a whole series of (prior) inferences. Those inferences are not in the sentence, but they effect its meaning none the less. Take the following newspaper headline as an example: "general flies back to front" ... how are you extracting meaning from this, and how do you know it matches the meaning intended by its author?

best ... khay

[gwr]

steveL, why do you hate so much? :(

Tell me, genstorm: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

While I realize the intent here, by both, hence my not handing out Warnings; it seems that you are both reading more into each others comments than is intended and are engaging in interpersonal rhetorical escalation, please keep it under control, even the rhetorical loaded questions.

desultory ... so, what is the intent here exactly? IMO, the former is a troll in the form of a seemingly innocuous (but loaded) question, and the later is the primary, and oft used, example of a loaded question. You seem to be treating both as having the same intent (escalation, or what-have-you) when they clearly don't. The more subtle the troll, or the more effort put into disguising it, the more likely it'll get a pass ... if it's countered it in some way, then that is seen as escalation. That's a no-win situation, and one that encourages trolling.

best ... khay

For what it's worth, I didn't see "why do you hate so much?" as a troll as much as everyone else. I kinda saw it as an actual question, poorly posed, as asking what about the topic made him so passionate/confrontational.

[desultory]

desultory ... so, what is the intent here exactly?

I had thought that rather obvious: to gently remind certain individuals that their posts are trending away from the productive toward the personal and request that they take heed of that fact and seek to address that on their own initiative. Both parties addressed by my post have shown themselves to be more than sufficiently intelligent and versed in the language used to understand the post.

IMO, the former is a troll in the form of a seemingly innocuous (but loaded) question, and the later is the primary, and oft used, example of a loaded question. You seem to be treating both as having the same intent (escalation, or what-have-you) when they clearly don't. The more subtle the troll, or the more effort put into disguising it, the more likely it'll get a pass ... if it's countered it in some way, then that is seen as escalation. That's a no-win situation, and one that encourages trolling.

In simple terms, genstorm's question could be taken in a variety of ways most simply as a poorly phrased earnest inquiry with regard to stevel's evident frustration, as such it would only arguably be on topic though it could easily be taken in a distinctly more negative fashion depending on frame of reference. Whereas stevel's response shows his understanding of the problem with genstorm's query it is itself open to similarly overly negative interpretation. As such both comments represent an net degradation in civility of discourse despite what I infer to be intent to the contrary.

[steveL]

All you see are written words. They are naked. You get absolutely no emotional hints you would normally get in direct communication through emphasis, expression, pitch of the others voice or facial expression. Only what you make up in your head. And that is only your emotion that has nothing to do (at least in most cases) with what the original author felt while writing the words you read.

Yamakuzure ... except that there is no such thing as "direct communication", even such "emotional hints" are interpreted (and so indirect).

..which only further heightens the problem Yamakuzure was bringing up.

I feel it's important that we deal with the substantive, so I'm going to pass on the obvious deficiencies in your conflation of intellect with meaning. ;)

Did they write with a smug sneer on their face? Or with furrowed brows? Did they grin or looked sadden? You'd never know.

... nor what they ate for breakfast, but all of that is outside of meaning anyhow, so there is absolutely no reason to know.

Indeed, but it is something to bear in mind; again, the substantive point: that trying to infer something about someone's personality, and most especially their character, based solely on a throwaway post on an internet chat forum, is full of rather obvious fail.

You're not really disagreeing with the substantive point; merely reinforcing it. However you are missing the social aspects, which are based on emotion, however you feel about it.
Rationality that cannot at least concede the existence of the irrational, is merely solipsism, at best.

IMO, the former is a troll in the form of a seemingly innocuous (but loaded) question, and the later is the primary, and oft used, example of a loaded question. You seem to be treating both as having the same intent (escalation, or what-have-you) when they clearly don't. The more subtle the troll, or the more effort put into disguising it, the more likely it'll get a pass ... if it's countered it in some way, then that is seen as escalation. That's a no-win situation, and one that encourages trolling.

Thank you for putting it so well.

[steveL]

For what it's worth, I didn't see "why do you hate so much?" as a troll as much as everyone else. I kinda saw it as an actual question, poorly posed, as asking what about the topic made him so passionate/confrontational.

Yes, that's how the trolling works. It's similar to so much of the ersatz solicitude displayed by systemdiots ("Think of the user!11!") which funnily enough is exactly the sales-pitch Ciaran McCreesh chose, after everyone had finally had enough of his bile.

genstorm has a long history of behaving nastily, in my opinion ofc; as a result of which he and I have had a couple of years of rather boring back-and-forth, since I had the temerity to call him out on it.

So, no, it's not the seemingly-naive and innocent question it appears to be; it's just disingenuous, aka: playing dumb.

And no, I'm not "confrontational", I'm actually rather bored by the whole thing.

Nice label though; I can see why people use it. It's a lot like "aggressive", one of those words people reach for when they don't want to consider the argument, but carry on living in lala-land.

I'm not saying that about you; just that you should bear in mind where your terms are coming from, and consider whether they are in fact precisely what you mean.

[steveL]

I had thought that rather obvious: to gently remind certain individuals that their posts are trending away from the productive toward the personal and request that they take heed of that fact and seek to address that on their own initiative.

Why the bureaucratic language about "certain individuals"? Just speak your mind, instead, so we can focus on what it is you're actually saying.
I disagree with your assessment entirely, as it relates to me. Does that mean your posts are trending towards the personal?

Of course not; only if I were one of the apparatchiks who abound.

In simple terms, genstorm's question could be taken in a variety of ways most simply as a poorly phrased earnest inquiry

which we all know to be untrue; but somehow it's more "civil" to pretend to be ignorant of the reality?

with regard to stevel's evident frustration

What frustration? Lord almighty the only frustration I have, is with the nonsensical statements made about my state of mind.

as such it would only arguably be on topic though it could easily be taken in a distinctly more negative fashion depending on frame of reference.

Indeed as provided above, and which you are fully aware of. You don't do anyone any favours by pretending that you are ignorant of the "frame of reference": first-hand knowledge of the situation is precisely what people expect you to apply.

Whereas stevel's response shows his understanding of the problem with genstorm's query

What problem is that, precisely? As you haven't actually raised one in all the flowery language, only that it "could be taken in a negative fashion", which again puts the blame on the person feeling put out at such flammery, rather than the person carrying it out.

it is itself open to similarly overly negative interpretation.

Nonsense, and you know it, as khayyam just outlined for you. Only you're talking past what he said, and I note that in doing so, you are equating my use of the example to make a point, with the action itself; exactly what he protested.

Everything is "open to interpretation"; that doesn't mean we have to lose our minds and pretend that nastiness is civil, simply to avoid causing faux-offence to someone behaving nastily.

As such both comments represent an net degradation in civility of discourse despite what I infer to be intent to the contrary.

Utterly specious, for the reason khayyam gave.

Quite apart from the fact, that there needs to be an actual discourse to be civil about, not just "think of the children" and "you won't buy my crap, so therefore I am offended, therefore you are offensive" or whatever other label we feel like applying, to stop people thinking.

[asturm]

In simple terms, genstorm's question could be taken in a variety of ways most simply as a poorly phrased earnest inquiry

which we all know to be untrue;

With regards to your reply to hasufell, and my own experience with your behaviour, even dragging your beef into entirely unrelated support threads, it was an honest inquiry. In a trolley voice, because life is sweet.

genstorm has a long history of behaving nastily, in my opinion ofc; as a result of which he and I have had a couple of years of rather boring back-and-forth, since I had the temerity to call him out on it.

Your perception of time is interesting; but of course adding a couple o' years just gives that little extra weight to your opinion. Surely you can dig out one more old thread, as you were bored enough to do so in a recent encounter?

[Yamakuzure]

Did they write with a smug sneer on their face? Or with furrowed brows? Did they grin or looked sadden? You'd never know.

... nor what they ate for breakfast, but all of that is outside of meaning anyhow, so there is absolutely no reason to know.

Sorry. No. If someone smiles at me in a friendly way after I made a mistake and says: "You totally messed that up!" it is a completely different thing than if they had an angry expression and raised voice.

That's what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can try to ignore it as much as you want, but you will never change the fact that reading the others intention is a million times easier (and more clear) when facing one-on-one than when reading naked written words. Simply put and highly subjective.

Indeed, but it is something to bear in mind; again, the substantive point: that trying to infer something about someone's personality, and most especially their character, based solely on a throwaway post on an internet chat forum, is full of rather obvious fail.

hear hear

[khayyam]

All you see are written words. They are naked. You get absolutely no emotional hints you would normally get in direct communication through emphasis, expression, pitch of the others voice or facial expression. Only what you make up in your head. And that is only your emotion that has nothing to do (at least in most cases) with what the original author felt while writing the words you read.

Yamakuzure ... except that there is no such thing as "direct communication", even such "emotional hints" are interpreted (and so indirect).

..which only further heightens the problem Yamakuzure was bringing up.

Well, no, Yamakuzure's claim is that emotion is a necessary component of communication, and that without it we are prone to misinterpret. I'm pointing to the fact that communication functions perfectly well without it, and that inference is entirely "what you make up in your head" regardless of the content of the signal, or attendant "emotional hints". I don't need to know "what the original author felt", in fact I can't, nor can I know what they think (in any absolute sense) ... but I have their words (and/or other signs), and that is what I exact meaning from.

I feel it's important that we deal with the substantive, so I'm going to pass on the obvious deficiencies in your conflation of intellect with meaning. ;)

A conflation that is of your own making, and illustrates (again) your lack of knowledge of semiotics (the context in which I used the term "meaning").

a sign is a relation between the sign vehicle (the specific physical form of the sign), a sign object (the aspect of the world that the sign carries meaning about) and an interpretant (the meaning of the sign as understood by an interpreter).

Did they write with a smug sneer on their face? Or with furrowed brows? Did they grin or looked sadden? You'd never know.

... nor what they ate for breakfast, but all of that is outside of meaning anyhow, so there is absolutely no reason to know.

Indeed, but it is something to bear in mind; again, the substantive point: that trying to infer something about someone's personality, and most especially their character, based solely on a throwaway post on an internet chat forum, is full of rather obvious fail.

I don't see how "inferring something about [...] personality, [or] character", has any bearing on what I wrote, the point is that I don't know what you had for breakfast, or what you think or feel (privately), but such a gap in my understanding isn't a barrier to communication (because that is the primary purpose communication serves, I might actually get a better idea of what it is you think, or what you ate, etc, etc).

You're not really disagreeing with the substantive point; merely reinforcing it. However you are missing the social aspects, which are based on emotion, however you feel about it. Rationality that cannot at least concede the existence of the irrational, is merely solipsism, at best.

No, I am disagreeing with the substantive point (see above), and where have I "missed the social aspects", or contested the existence of irrationality?

Did they write with a smug sneer on their face? Or with furrowed brows? Did they grin or looked sadden? You'd never know.

... nor what they ate for breakfast, but all of that is outside of meaning anyhow, so there is absolutely no reason to know.

Sorry. No. If someone smiles at me in a friendly way after I made a mistake and says: "You totally messed that up!" it is a completely different thing than if they had an angry expression and raised voice.

So, if I said to you "you totally messed that up" (the above argument) are you capable of understanding my meaning, or does the lack of an expression make that impossible? Also, when a baby cries how do you know if its hungry, or sick, being eaten by a wolf, or what-have-you? Or, again, when you read "general flies back to front" how are you deriving the intended meaning?

best ... khay

[desultory]

Locked, the sophistry department is in another forum, and there seems little value in moving this topic there.