academe
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- 234
Well, we clearly have very different views on what has happened here. It would be waste of time to exchange accusations of each other's biases, since obviously neither you nor I believe we have any with respect to this thread. However, I will say this: the fact that you had nothing to do with my discussion with David, and interjected with multi-paragraph analyses of my motivations and character, makes it seem a tad bit hypocritical to be accusing me of "hectoring and dogged persistence."
This isn't quite accurate, and you're overstating again; the "multi-paragraph" bit was really largely given over to my description of how I perceived the exchange and my perceptions of your statements and David's. I think there was only really one sentence in one paragraph (which you quoted) where I speculated on your motivations.
Is it that you just have a need to be right? I'd like to extend the good faith that you are merely discussing what you genuinely think, but I'd appreciate it if you did the same.
I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you. I don't have anything to "prove"; as far as I'm concerned I'm simply stating my opinion. You can dislike my opinion and disagree with me - it's really no skin off of my back. I don't doubt that you are stating what you genuinely think, as am I. Why would I be motivated to do anything else? I think I've been quite forthright in saying that I found your statements/tone objectionable in this case. There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about that - it's simply my reaction to your posts.
I remain resolutely proud of my participation in that thread, actually. The world is better off with fewer divots and divets.
Fair enough. I came down on the side thinking that you'd really gone over the top. We had gotten your point, and didn't need to hear it again and again and again.