If you can't see the difference between making a request and an accusation, I despair of much further progress.
I still see Mark 's post as a humorous summary not as definition, and not just the closing remark. Where on earth is the definition? Perhaps Mark can help us with this?
I await my 'greatest hits' in the happy future.
Jamie
Sent from my iPad
> On 26 Oct 2016, at 18:21, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Again, you are merely repeating here your accusations from your last post. And again I have to state that I don't see them as applying to my exchanges with you. Repetition doesn't make something true that isn't.
>
> If you interpret the totality of Mark's view as humorous, as you've said, then you have misread it. The major portion was a serious attempt at a definition. True, his last sentence was a pithy throwaway remark about the Nobel which could be interpreted as humourous, but the humour in that closing remark was distinct from the the serious point he had made in what led up to it. By saying, as you do, that "it is clearly not a 'definition' but a humorous and pithy summary of the overlap of poems and songs" is to extend and project the humour of that closing remark on to the more serious and considered statements he makes in the previous sentences dealing with the matter at issue.
>
> So, here, you have misrepresented what he said to suit your position, after accusing me of misrepresenting your various statements--which I flatly deny.
>
> I know that, despite this example of your misrepresentation of Mark's statement, you will probably come back and defend it by re-interpreting what you said (or meant) about it being humourous. You seem to specialise in this sort of, backtracking redefinition of fallacious statements you have made. I'll try yo compile your "greatest hits" of them one day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------Original Message--------------------------
>
>
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
> David, I'm not accused you of anything, I'm making a request for a more civil kind of exchange than has been the case between us of late.
> The suggested ground rules were merely to make the discussion less unpleasant, not in the least to make my position easier to defend. I've found that quite easy enough. Why should it be unfair to ask someone not to misrepresent an argument just as one example? Does an argument that becomes abusive mean that a position is harder to defend? No, it just distracts both sides from what the argument is. I can't even see why this reasonable proposal appears to you 'petulant'. Besides which my points are closely aligned to the list's regulations which you might care to have a look at, so I'm really changing nothing.
> Your last point you raise seems ok - of course it's fine to pick on instances you disagree with but not if it misrepresents the whole argument
> I haven't commented on Mark's post because, despite your frequent references to it as such, it is clearly not a 'definition' but a humorous and pithy summary of the overlap of poems and songs. It is fun to read but neither touches on nor explains any of the concerns I have about the differences between poems and songs, and I'm sure Mark would be the first to acknowledge that, even if he sees no difference.
>
> Of course you must do as you like, but if the discussion degenerates between us in the ways I'm trying to avoid, then I'll ignore your posts as you're free to ignore mine.
>
> Jamie
|