* 
Welcome Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


*
gfxgfx Home Forum Help Search Login Register   gfxgfx
gfx gfx
gfx
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: Rayne/Coren: Disagreement ensuing from 'Cloud Elves' thread: closed.  (Read 4732 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« on: 19 January 2010, 04:43:02 »

Ah! I didn't realize we had changed the definition of cotton~!

Per the discussion concerning Santharian/Terran terms, perhaps you might consider changing the name in order to avoid confusion? What your describing is not, after all, Terran cotton. It seems to have some contradictory qualities, as well, that make me hesitant to adopt it.

I dislike making things too complicated. Material + Magic seems more difficult to me than simply making a material that would have the features you describe. And I'm not sure how the elves would feel about magically manipulating the natural state of the material.

And, as mentioned before, I don't see these elves being big traders.
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Coren FrozenZephyr
Moderator
****

Gained Aura: 157
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3.357



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 19 January 2010, 05:03:20 »

Quote
Ah! I didn't realize we had changed the definition of cotton~!

1) Well, Rayne, with all due respect, I think Talia might have a point! I posted the link to the entry (several times), so that you'd go and read it for yourself!

You might not have heard of the Gondolwain, and thus wouldn't have known where to look, so it was fair that I alerted you to its presence and post a link. But I shouldn't have to search through it myself, and cherry-pick the relevant sections for you and quote my own entry.

In addition, the first time you mentioned your interest in writing this tribe, I attached a map and asked you to read up on the surrounding tribes. E.g. Gondolwain, Aca-Santerra, Kayr, nomads, Loreney etc. Have you done so?

I admire the speed with which you produce stuff. But how about doing more of the background reading as well? You do do research for a living after all!  :D


2) I didn't change the definition of cotton. Do have another look at it. Cotton is still cotton - this is Gondol cotton or "Gondolsilk" - of which there are two varieties, normal and enchanted. What you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

« Last Edit: 19 January 2010, 05:07:07 by Coren FrozenZephyr » Logged

"Everything should be as simple as possible and not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Is he allowed to do that?"
"I think that comes under the rule of Quia Ego Sic Dico."
"Yes, what does that mean?"
"'Because I say so', I think."
"That doesn't sound like much of a rule!"
"Actually, it's the only one he needs." (Making Money by Terry Pratchett)
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 19 January 2010, 05:11:59 »

1) Well, Rayne, with all due respect, I think Talia might have a point! I posted the link to the entry (several times), so that you'd go and read it for yourself!

You might not have heard of the Gondolwain, and thus wouldn't have known where to look, so it was fair that I alerted you to its presence and post a link. But I shouldn't have to search through it myself, and cherry-pick the relevant sections for you and quote my own entry.

In addition, the first time you mentioned your interest in writing this tribe, I attached a map and asked you to read up on the surrounding tribes. E.g. Gondolwain, Aca-Santerra, Kayr, nomads, Loreney etc. Have you done so?

I admire the speed with which you produce stuff. But how about doing more of the background reading as well? You do do research for a living after all!  :D

I do smart research--which means I scan for pertinent information. From all accounts in pedagogical and academic research methods, it's the most efficient way to actually DO research. And Talia made a generalization based on mis-communication. I do read entries, but I read them expecting the terms to be used in a more consistent term-referent fashion. When I hit "cotton," I supposed to you meant Terran cotton, not a completely different type of fabric all together. And yes, this is a different fabric. Cotton does NOT have the qualities that you've described. Cotton burns. Cotton soaks up water. Cotton soaks up smells. [I'm very offended at your quick assumptions and generalizations, and de-contextualized remarks on my means of research.]

And please don't revise posts like you did on your above one! It would be better to post all the information you have at once. I'm entirely befuddled concerning how to respond to your posts when they keep changing!

Quote
Re cotton: I don't have any plans yet regarding the plant. I am sure something suitably fantastic can be invented should we ever need to write the herbarium entry. I just want the finished product to look like cotton. I could have of course called it something else - but as you know I am rather adamantly against inventing new names for things which resemble their terran counterparts
I suggest you mark a material that already has the properties you describe instead of taking a fabric and doing magical acrobatics to make it the way you want.

Quote
Across the Atlantic, we call it "Mediterranean"  
Mediterranean generally implies a warmer, sunnier, less foggy/misty environment, at least over here.


Quote
Re climate: Sounds fine. Btw, the felt temperature is always more extreme when it's humid (so a humid summer feels a lot hotter, and a humid cold feels a lot chillier)
Humid palce= more drastic temperature changes throughout the year
Unhumid place= more drastic temperatuer changes during a 24-hour period.


Quote
Well, do they have to live one another? How about a live-let-live attitude? They could visit each other from time to time. Is it really very cloudly to cling on to things?  Also I thought the ferlawyng were meant to be reclusive - do they live among the Cloud Elves? Well, it's your entry, so I leave the choice to you. If you feel you need to amend the ferlawyng, you have my blessing.   Alternatively you could of course remove this bonding idea.
It was your idea to have this relationship. I am willing to scrap it if you like.


I'm very offended at the notion that, because my research technique is different from yours, you can make generalizations that I don't do research. I have to do a ton of research for my term papers. I have to go through books and books within a very short period of time. You CANNOT read every single word, and check every single denotation when you do this type of research. You HAVE to scan for information, and you have to expect that when people say "epistemological" or "temporal and spacial dimensions" or "identity formation," the definitions are at least relatively similar to your own.

I do research when I need to do research, not before (I'm not going to go do research on Thalambath religion if the locations will move; I'm not going to do research on dwarven religions when the research's race may be changing.) I don't have TIME. I do efficient research, the research I was taught to do, that I was praised for doing, and that continues to aid me SIGNIFICANTLY in my academic studies.

I'm tempted to abandoned the project all together and let you do it yourself. I don't like working with people who make such quick judgments without considering my background or style.
« Last Edit: 19 January 2010, 05:27:29 by Rayne Avalotus » Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Coren FrozenZephyr
Moderator
****

Gained Aura: 157
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3.357



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 19 January 2010, 06:43:02 »

Which post did I revise?

In the last one I just corrected a spelling mistake. If you are talking about the one above that (the one about mediterranean climate etc). I didn't realise that the browser had already posted the thing before I was finished. So I had to go back and add in the extra stuff. And precisely because I realised ex post facto that we "cross-typed" and might thus no longer be on the same page, I wrote in the shoutbox: "Rayne, it seems I just edited mine after you posted yours. You may not have seen the whole thing therefore."

"I'm entirely befuddled concerning how to respond to your posts when they keep changing!" Rayne, you make it sound as if I purposefully amend what I've written to make you look bad!

Quote
I do smart research--which means I scan for pertinent information. From all accounts in pedagogical and academic research methods, it's the most efficient way to actually DO research. I do read entries, but I read them expecting the terms to be used in a more consistent term-referent fashion. When I hit "cotton," I supposed to you meant Terran cotton, not a completely different type of fabric all together. And yes, this is a different fabric. Cotton does NOT have the qualities that you've described.

Rayne, your post is: (i) condescending; (ii) illogical.

I too make a living from research. So please do not talk down to me and lecture me on what "smart research" means or what good research skills involve.

In addition, the tone of the part I quoted comes across as arrogant and impolite.

As regards (ii), you are pulling arguments out of thin air. (a) "Gondol cotton"; "the type of cotton spun by this tribe" etc all imply that this is a special type of cotton. You cannot seriously be saying upon reading those five paragraphs you get the impression that I am saying "this is what cotton is like in all of Caelereth" rather than "cotton exists in Caelereth, but there is also a type of cotton woven by the Gondolwain that is very different to what we are used to". (b) As regards "And yes, this is a different fabric. Cotton does NOT have the qualities that you've described" : That's why it says "enchanted" cotton... Seriously...

(c) This whole tirade on scanning texts, searching via the use of keywords is irrelevant here. It is not as if this was something you had to chance upon by using the search function. I gave you a list of things to read up on (the tribes surrounding the Paelrhem) and a specific link to the gondolwain entry. This is akin to a reading list, not a research/find the answer task. I asked you to read these entries so that you had a general idea of what the region was like. This is something expected of all developers. I cannot put a tribe in the middle of Mantharia without reading the main entries of that region, even if they are not strictly "necessary" for specific portions of my entry. The same applies here - especially since Nybelmar is less developed and has fewer relevant entries.

You are not being fair here.




EDIT:

PS: You scold me for editing texts, and before I could post a reply, you adding new sections to your own. Please be consistent.

Quote
I'm very offended at the notion that, because my research technique is different from yours, you can make generalizations that I don't do research. [...] I don't like working with people who make such quick judgments without considering my background or style.

Rayne, you are offended too easily! Please take a step back and re-evaluate: Are you not making a mountain  out of a molehill? No one is attacking you. No one is criticising your skills or making a personal remark. I have no doubt that you are an efficient researcher. There is a difference between: "You suck. You are a horrendous researcher." and "In this instance, I don't consider the research you did to be adequate. Knowing your skills and training, I would have expected more." My comments were the latter.

I am going to be frank. Not because I want to hurt you. Not because I want to suppress or rise above you like oil over water. But because I respect you and our friendship. So please take my candour as a tribute to my faith in our friendship. I could not say this to a client or to a stranger. But friends should be able to speak their minds freely to one another, even if what has to be said hurts:

Please, Rayne, I'm asking this in the kindest way I know, please do not turn arguments on technical issues to great moral battles. I am really at a loss here. I don't know how to phrase myself so as not to inadvertently cause offence to you anymore. I increasingly feel as if I have to navigate a minefield around you - as if any critique I make might suddenly explode in my face. One minute we are discussing additional research that needs to be undertaken, the next I find myself accused on ethical grounds.

This is a bit absurd. I am not saying you shouldn't stand for what you believe in. I am definitely the last person to dissuade you from vindicating your rights. But you need to choose your battles wisely.

Invoking moral principles may be appropriate when someone is being unacceptably patronising, or being cruel to a fellow developer, or when you are faced with someone like Remaom. But over a decimal point - or as here, over a stupid cloth/entry?




Also you seem to be lashing out at me when your anger/frustration may actually be directed at another discussion. All this rebellion against shifting races of dwarven researchers and Thalambath landscapes have no relevance to either this thread, or to the criticism I made in my last post.

You say you are offended that people judge and make quick generalizations about you. Are you not doing the very thing that you find disturbing when you post such a response? You have known me for more than five years now. Do I come across as a resentful person who sulks around the corner until I get the opportunity to shoot poisonous words? I am very saddened if this is the impression I have left on you. Please give me the benefit of the doubt as well.

Please note that I wrote "Talia might have a point" and not "Talia was right after all". Likewise: I introduced a few smilies to soften the tone and to convey that message wasn't meant to be acerbic or critical. I take great care with the way I word things. I only ask that you do too.









These two things (that is: (I) the condescending tone of some of your posts & (II) the tendency to turn arguments into questions of morality) were exactly why I was offended/annoyed in the elven energy thread. Sometimes the way you phrase things or snap at people comes across (to me) as haughty. Now that may or may not be the intention - that's just how it appeared to me upon reading. That's why I suggested that we take more care with the way we word things. And it is very difficult to engage in debate when everything gets turned into a constitutional argument  :(


hug



I am signing off now. This argument has exhausted me. I am also greatly saddened. Had it not been night and very cold I would have gone outside to take a long walk. I hope when I come back in the morning we both will have cooled down. I try to take logic as my guiding principle in life. I am not comfortable when arguments turn emotional.
Logged

"Everything should be as simple as possible and not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Is he allowed to do that?"
"I think that comes under the rule of Quia Ego Sic Dico."
"Yes, what does that mean?"
"'Because I say so', I think."
"That doesn't sound like much of a rule!"
"Actually, it's the only one he needs." (Making Money by Terry Pratchett)
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 19 January 2010, 08:02:36 »

In the last one I just corrected a spelling mistake. If you are talking about the one above that (the one about mediterranean climate etc). I didn't realise that the browser had already posted the thing before I was finished. So I had to go back and add in the extra stuff. And precisely because I realised ex post facto that we "cross-typed" and might thus no longer be on the same page, I wrote in the shoutbox: "Rayne, it seems I just edited mine after you posted yours. You may not have seen the whole thing therefore."
I didn't see the shout-box. To be honest, I don't really look at it much. I will try to look at it more often for notifications of this sort.

Quote
"I'm entirely befuddled concerning how to respond to your posts when they keep changing!" Rayne, you make it sound as if I purposefully amend what I've written to make you look bad!
That was not my intention at all! I instead assumed that perhaps you didn't see things from my point of view when looking at your post. How could editing a post make me look bad? Besides, I look bad enough.

Quote
Rayne, your post is: (i) condescending; (ii) illogical.

I too make a living from research. So please do not talk down to me and lecture me on what "smart research" means or what good research skills involve.

In addition, the tone of the part I quoted comes across as arrogant and impolite.
These are the same qualities I read in your post when you chided me for not doing research when I DO research. I would also advice that you use less accusative language (i.e. instead of "your post IS", "your post seems to me to be." Used in this way, you make it sound as if your interpretations are the RIGHT interpretations, which is how this argument got started). Re-read your post--I think you will find it condescending and illogical as well. I will admit that calling it "smart research" does make my post a bit condescending--but this was said in defense of a way of researching that you seem to oppose, or view as incorrect. I'm trying to defend myself and my research methods, because I feel you have attacked both of them. Implicit in you statements is that the research method I have is a poor one because I scan instead of reading tens of pages of reading, most of which isn't pertinent to this entry.

Quote
As regards (ii), you are pulling arguments out of thin air. (a) "Gondol cotton"; "the type of cotton spun by this tribe" etc all imply that this is a special type of cotton. You cannot seriously be saying upon reading those five paragraphs you get the impression that I am saying "this is what cotton is like in all of Caelereth" rather than "cotton exists in Caelereth, but there is also a type of cotton woven by the Gondolwain that is very different to what we are used to". (b) As regards "And yes, this is a different fabric. Cotton does NOT have the qualities that you've described" : That's why it says "enchanted" cotton... Seriously...
My argument is that cotton means something different in Terran terms than how you are using it in the entry. Terran cotton does not have the properties you described. When I read the entry on Gondolwain and saw "cotton," I naturally thought you were referring to Terran cotton, with Terran properties, not a different fabric with drastically different properties. I assume that if I see cotton, it will be a type of fabric that has the qualities of Terran cotton. You have enchanted it to the point it is a completely different type of fabric. Like a mentioned before, you've done magical acrobatics to get it the way you wanted it. For me, this seems illogical compared with developing a different material.

Is this discussion pertinent to the entry?

Quote
(c) This whole tirade on scanning texts, searching via the use of keywords is irrelevant here. It is not as if this was something you had to chance upon by using the search function. I gave you a list of things to read up on (the tribes surrounding the Paelrhem) and a specific link to the gondolwain entry. This is akin to a reading list, not a research/find the answer task. I asked you to read these entries so that you had a general idea of what the region was like. This is something expected of all developers. I cannot put a tribe in the middle of Mantharia without reading the main entries of that region, even if they are not strictly "necessary" for specific portions of my entry. The same applies here - especially since Nybelmar is less developed and has fewer relevant entries.
I'm not going on a tirade. In order to avoid exacerbating this argument further, it would be best not to employ these sorts of terms. I am simply offended that you think my method of research is equivalent to doing no research at all because I read terms differently (i.e. cotton as Terran cotton). Where is this list you speak of? You told me, "Try searching for "Paélrhem" (allowing for misspellings such as Paelrhim, Paelrhem etc)," which I did. You linked to a entry on Nybelmar that mentioned the elves, which I not only found previously, but also read. If I missed it, I apologize. Unfortunately this discussion has spanned out over, not just two threads, but also the shout-box and PMs. Perhaps we should only post things related to the tribe in THIS thread.

Quote
You are not being fair here.
Again, be careful of how you word things. "I don't think you're being fair here." Do you see how the language you use can be interpreted? And I don't think you're being fair, either.


EDIT:

Quote
PS: You scold me for editing texts, and before I could post a reply, you adding new sections to your own. Please be consistent.
I edited when I saw edits. I don't know how to keep up with all the edits. Can we make an agreement not to edit any post after we've posted it?

Quote
Rayne, you are offended too easily! Please take a step back and re-evaluate: Are you not making a mountain  out of a molehill? No one is attacking you. No one is criticising your skills or making a personal remark. I have no doubt that you are an efficient researcher. There is a difference between: "You suck. You are a horrendous researcher." and "In this instance, I don't consider the research you did to be adequate. Knowing your skills and training, I would have expected more." ...
Coren, you cannot tell someone, "Well, Rayne, with all due respect, I think Talia might have a point! I posted the link to the entry (several times), so that you'd go and read it for yourself!" and "But how about doing more of the background reading as well? You do do research for a living after all!" and not expect me to be offended. You've told me I haven't read, when I have. You assume I hadn't read because I assumed your term kept its Terran meaning. How would you feel if someone told you what you told me, after you had shuffled through pages and pages, scanned so many entries, trying to find mention of these elves, learning about the other elves in the area, trying to get a feel for the climate, terrain, how other elves were building houses, how they looked, what they might have to trade. I am entering upon an ENTIRELY new continent, and you expect me to know as much as you do? I am reading what I can to catch up for the sake of this entry.

I do research, and do background research, but keep in mind that I am trying to do A LOT within a small amount of time. I'm hurt by your suggestion that I haven't been pulling my weight in terms of research. That's what I read. There's a reason why I don't chastise people in my discussions about what they don't know: because I have been discussing Ximax Academy for YEARS. I don't expect people to have read all those discussions, even if I post links to them. I don't even expect them to have read the rest of the Ximax entry, because it is very, very long. Entries are long and convoluted--the site is growing every few weeks. You can tell me to read all about everything, and I will scan through for the basics, but I can't pick up when a regular Terran word gains new denotations. And I learn more by doing than reading. Most people do. You seem to want to work WITH me on this project, and yet you seem entirely willing to leave me on my own to shuffle through pages and pages of text, most of which is not at all pertinent to this discussion!

And as much as you chastise me for "not doing research," I can chastise you for what I feel is a poor use of terms. But we don't get anywhere that way. If you want to work with me, you need to not offend me by telling me what I should be doing.


Quote
Please, Rayne, I'm asking this in the kindest way I know, please do not turn arguments on technical issues to great moral battles. I am really at a loss here. I don't know how to phrase myself so as not to inadvertently cause offence to you anymore. I increasingly feel as if I have to navigate a minefield around you - as if any critique I make might suddenly explode in my face. One minute we are discussing additional research that needs to be undertaken, the next I find myself accused on ethical grounds.
Ah--you've lost me. Moral battles? Ethical grounds? When did we enter this arena? I don't see where anything you said or I said related to morals or ethics. I'm upset at your telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing, and assuming that I should know things that I don't (like that a Terran term can be used a different way). We have different notions of what it means to do "research," it seems. This is where I get upset: you have accused me of not doing enough research and not reading entries I read. I scanned, because I try to get the information I need quickly and efficiently, and while the entry is interesting (at least in the parts I made special note to read in particular), I don't have time to go through it line by line, word by word, and I want to avoid reading parts I don't need to. I see "cotton," my mind goes to the Terran definition, and I skip over it. It does not seem useful, and I need to glean what is useful.

The research method has its faults, I won't lie. But in general, it's a very efficient way to go about gaining information. I read what I feel I need to know to get the information. I assume that those pieces I skip over by accident will be filled in during the discussion. I never go into a discussion assuming I have all the information. I also assume that I know things others will not. When someone makes a comment that makes it clear they do not know the information, or have not read the piece, I don't scold them for it as you have done. I casually give the information, maybe a link for verification purposes, and move on. I don't see how you can justify the things you have said related to research. I don't see how telling me "But how about doing more of the background reading as well? You do do research for a living after all!" (which I find very condescending) does anything productive for the discussion.

What moral principles are you referring to? This isn't a moral battle of right and wrong. I don't care what you believe is right and wrong, and I don't expect you to care what I believe is right and wrong in a moral sense. I would just rather not be judged as you have judged me.



Also you seem to be lashing out at me when your anger/frustration may actually be directed at another discussion. All this rebellion against shifting races of dwarven researchers and Thalambath landscapes have no relevance to either this thread, or to the criticism I made in my last post.[/quote]
You made a allusion to it, and therefore made it relevant. You've thrown a past situation, a former judgment (one I don't believe was fairly made) back at me, divorced from context and situation. Because you felt that Talia was right in her assertion (and this is the implication), I had to not only defend myself against YOUR judgment, but also hers.

Quote
You say you are offended that people judge and make quick generalizations about you. Are you not doing the very thing that you find disturbing when you post such a response? You have known me for more than five years now. Do I come across as a resentful person who sulks around the corner until I get the opportunity to shoot poisonous words? I am very saddened if this is the impression I have left on you. Please give me the benefit of the doubt as well.
I am saddened, too. Coren, I think the world of you. I do not tell people this very often, and there are few who I would say it to (particularly because I get unusually sentimental when I talk about it, and I hate crying). I am continually impressed by your poesy, your tact, and your knowledge. It is perhaps because your are so good with words that I hold you to a higher standard. It is because I hold you to a higher standard that I am more touched (positively or negatively) by your opinions and sentiments. When you speak as you have spoken, speaking words which I don't think were fair or necessary, I get hurt--more easily than I would have.

Quote
Please note that I wrote "Talia might have a point" and not "Talia was right after all". Likewise: I introduced a few smilies to soften the tone and to convey that message wasn't meant to be acerbic or critical. I take great care with the way I word things. I only ask that you do too.
Smiles have a way of coming across as ironic or sarcastic: I don't consider them when I read things. If I had, I probably would have judged them negatively in this context. I remember a post by Artimidor that read something like "If this doesn't scare you away, you can try your luck. :)" It seemed terribly mean to me.



Quote
These two things (that is: (I) the condescending tone of some of your posts & (II) the tendency to turn arguments into questions of morality) were exactly why I was offended/annoyed in the elven energy thread. Sometimes the way you phrase things or snap at people comes across (to me) as haughty. Now that may or may not be the intention - that's just how it appeared to me upon reading. That's why I suggested that we take more care with the way we word things. And it is very difficult to engage in debate when everything gets turned into a constitutional argument  :(
What offended you seems to be the same thing that offended me. I hate evaluating and I hate judging. These are things I come across too often in my everyday life. I am judged by my family as not being religious enough. I am judged by my peers as not being social enough. I am being judged right now for whether I am good enough for PhD programs around the country. I hate being judged, and I hate judging. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt--which has frequently ended up very, very bad for me. When you tell me what I should be doing, you bring into the picture a variety of implications: that I was doing something that was wrong, that you know what is right, that your ways of doing things are better than mine, that there is a hierarchy in which your idea of correctness is better than my idea of correctness. These all get implicated! This is the danger with making the statements you made.

If you want me to know everything there is to know about Nybelmar and all the races and tribes, then I cannot do this project. I can scan entries, glance through past discussion, etc., but I don't have time to read word-for-word all that has been written. If this isn't going to be enough for you, then I step down. You are free to use the parts of the entry already written--I make no claim to anything I have written. It is all Santharia's anyway.


Quote
I am signing off now. This argument has exhausted me. I am also greatly saddened. Had it not been night and very cold I would have gone outside to take a long walk. I hope when I come back in the morning we both will have cooled down. I try to take logic as my guiding principle in life. I am not comfortable when arguments turn emotional.
I take logic as my guiding principle. I am not comfortable when arguments turn into criticisms against myself or my means. I do not like to be judged. And your wording and phraseology makes me feel more as though I'm being judged, and makes me feel more misunderstood.

Can we make any general agreements to keep this from happening?
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Kalína Dalá'isyrás
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 32
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 752


Dalá'isyrás


View Profile Homepage
« Reply #5 on: 19 January 2010, 09:17:26 »

Rayne, I can attest you come off quite strongly at times in your arguments, and often over minorities. It has been why I have been keeping myself out of your entries. The confrontation which seems to be unavoidable, isn't always worth it.

Keep in mind, you are BOTH strong-willed people, with strong arguments towards your causes, so there is bound to be clashes - but don't always take things personally, as most comments are not directed to your character, but to the entries you are writing.
Logged

Insanity is only a perception made by those who have yet to attain its greatness. While those of us who have already stepped inside its bounds find bliss in our utter madness.
Draconic Development Schedule
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 19 January 2010, 12:48:48 »

Rayne, I can attest you come off quite strongly at times in your arguments, and often over minorities. It has been why I have been keeping myself out of your entries. The confrontation which seems to be unavoidable, isn't always worth it.
Minorities = details? I find what is a detail and what is not is often a matter of opinion. It is not so much the detail in question as the perspectives around that detail, the background and priorities people come from. In other people's entries, I am far more lenient than I am for my own. All my checks are suggestions, and while I find them important, I can't expect others will. I do unto others' entries as I would have them do unto mine. I think you will find that I have never strongly asserted my own views for changing someone else's entries: I have only fought when someone tried to force me to change my own entry in a way I felt was inappropriate.

I am sad that you are unwilling to comment on my entries, but I understand. I will fight to keep what I feel is appropriate to my own entries. I come off as stubborn, but only when I feel I am justified in my decision. You have to form a very good argument to sway me, and this takes a lot of time and energy.

Quote
Keep in mind, you are BOTH strong-willed people, with strong arguments towards your causes, so there is bound to be clashes - but don't always take things personally, as most comments are not directed to your character, but to the entries you are writing.

This is good advice. Thank you, Kalina.

I am already feeling the pieces in me shuddering and separating, cracking along defining and defined edges. But I know it would be too cliche to say this day has noticeably shattered me. Gift it to the silence, with fracturing smile.
Collect yourself, maintain your form
Against the churning, turning storm.
Turn with poise, leave with grace
And hide the marks that line your face
With watered eyes and cheeks red-stained
To find that there is nothing gained.
I've lost too much; there is no score
and what were we both fighting for?

How well she wears the painted mask
to do the work, complete the task,
to fill the role and play her part,
to hide herself and hide her heart,
Her words are sturdy, strong, and bold:
She does not crumble, does not fold.
She turns with poise, leaves with grace
to hide what's reddening her face...

Second poem I've written today. These moods always get me overly poetic...  sigh
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Coren FrozenZephyr
Moderator
****

Gained Aura: 157
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3.357



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 23 January 2010, 04:58:48 »

Rayne, I know you are a rational person capable of divorcing the merits of arguments from the emotions attached to them. And I trust that you will keep an open mind, not shutting your ears from the outset to what I have to say.

I think you phrased this very well yourself when you said, in a different discussion, that: ‘arguments that have turned personal generally stay personal until tempers have cooled enough to bring the discussion back to a more logical, rational plane--out of pathos back into logos, so to speak.’

So what follows is an attempt to appeal to this sense of logic in order that we may resolve our disagreement without further anguish or resentment.

I refrained from posting for three days: (a) because I was exhausted; (b) because I wanted to take a step back and assess this objectively rather than give in to my anger/annoyance/frustration. I hope this three day period has given both of us a chance to ‘come out of pathos back into logos’ as you said.




Rayne, your last two posts were rather long ones - but I think they can be distilled into 6 issues or areas of contention between us:

(i)   Research

(ii)   Language & misinterpretation
-   My post numbered #msg177899 - hereafter: ‘the Offending Post’)

(iii)   Routine/technical disagreements being turned into questions of morality

(iv)   Giving people the benefit of the doubt

(v)   Gonsilk – the “cotton” debate: A technical/development issue - not relevant to this discussion. However, you do raise an interesting point which I would like to tease out further. So I will open a new thread to discuss this.



(I)   RESEARCH

Issue-1, that which sparked this acrimonious argument, has turned out to be a non-issue: It seems to me that there has been a misunderstanding.

Firstly, I do NOT think that ‘[your] method of doing research is equivalent to doing no research at all.’ Nor did I ever intend to say/imply this. I apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I did not and do not wish to make you feel hurt or uncomfortable. (I will come back to this under ‘(ii) Language and misinterpretation’)

Secondly, I wish to address the following:

Quote
Implicit in you statements is that the research method I have is a poor one because I scan instead of reading tens of pages of reading, most of which isn't pertinent to this entry

Quote
We have different notions of what it means to do "research," it seems. This is where I get upset: you have accused me of not doing enough research and not reading entries I read. I scanned, because I try to get the information I need quickly and efficiently, and while the entry is interesting (at least in the parts I made special note to read in particular), I don't have time to go through it line by line, word by word, and I want to avoid reading parts I don't need to. I see "cotton," my mind goes to the Terran definition, and I skip over it. It does not seem useful, and I need to glean what is useful.

Again: another misunderstanding. It seems we actually carry out research in a very similar way. So when I said ‘please do not talk down to me and lecture me on what “smart research” means or what good research skills involve,’ the reason I was annoyed was because I was thinking in my head: ‘I already know all this – I don’t need her to tell me what I’ve been doing for years.’

Thirdly, it seems I was labouring under a misapprehension when I made the Offending Post. I was annoyed because I got the following impression from reading your preceding posts: That you were actually telling me that you hadn’t bothered to browse through the Gondolwen entry, even though I had not only (a) asked you  research the surrounding tribes but also (b) specifically set a link to it twice. That made me feel upset because not doing research is tantamount to saying one does not value what others have written, or that one finds it boring.

This is what alerted me to the fact that we might both have misinterpreted the situation: 

Quote
How would you feel if someone told you what you told me, after you had shuffled through pages and pages, scanned so many entries, trying to find mention of these elves, learning about the other elves in the area, trying to get a feel for the climate, terrain, how other elves were building houses, how they looked, what they might have to trade.

In other words: I did not realise that you had gone through the following process: Searched the Gondolwain entry using key-words for anything related to textiles. When the search engine threw up ‘cotton’, you immediately thought: Ah, but that wouldn’t work in this situation. So you skipped to the next item. As a result, you never read the rest of that paragraph, which would have told you that Gondolwain sometimes enchant the cotton they weave so as to imbue it with exactly those qualities you needed.

That is legitimate. I do not object to this.

(That said, perhaps in the future it would be best to read the whole of the Production & Trade section to see if there is anything else which might be of use. Since I research in a similar way, this is something I have to watch out for as well. On that note, btw, I have a funny legal anecdote concerning whether in law ‘per day’ means every 24 hours or every calendar day. Remind me about it later.)


I could stop right there because we’ve now dealt with the subject matter, i.e. that which gave rise to the quarrel. In legal terms, the remaining issues would not form part of the ratio but represent obiter dicta. However, I shall attend to them because, as you say, ‘It is not so much the detail in question as the perspectives around that detail, the background and priorities people come from.’

To reiterate: I will address these to see if we can tease out (x) what kind of things rubs each one of us the wrong way and (y) what can be done to avoid this in the future:


(II)   LANGUAGE & MISINTERPRETATION

Quote
[...] use less accusative language (i.e. instead of "your post IS", "your post seems to me to be." Used in this way, you make it sound as if your interpretations are the RIGHT interpretations, which is how this argument got started).

Here I disagree.

1. On one hand, we have cases which are obviously statements of fact: ‘The sun is yellow.’ ‘The square root of nine is three.’ In all other cases, it is implicit that a person is stating an opinion rather than making a declaration that the world is thus and not so. Almost as if attached to it at the end is a schedule reading: ‘This is my opinion.’

By way of example: When I say ‘it is implicit that [xyz]’ what that actually means is ‘To my mind, it is implicit that [xyz].’ That goes without saying.

To borrow a legal analogy, our disagreement on this is about where the onus lies:

The argument you make assumes that whenever a person expresses an opinion, they must believe that their opinion is the only possible one and that they are closed to hearing anything to the contrary. The burden should be on them to state/clarify that this is not so.

My argument is that we should start from the other end of the spectrum: I’m saying that that is not a permissible inference to draw when faced with a rational individual and that individual says ‘This is [xyz]. Your post is [abc].’ Before one can draw that inference, there must be something going the other way, something tipping the scales – such as one’s previous experience with that person or some evidence as to their character or their tone of voice or facial expressions or body language. So only when eg I know from previous dealings that the person I am faced with is an irrational, obnoxious ox, should I assume that he intends to be an irrational, obnoxious ox in this instance as well. In short: a rebuttable presumption.


(ASIDE: This seems like a good point to squeeze in Issue-3 and clarify what I meant by ‘the tendency to turn technical issues into great moral battles.’ Let me try to illustrate this by drawing on two posts, one from the Drakelet thread and one from Nominations.

Please understand, I am not referencing these to bring up those old arguments or to point the finger at you and make you feel embarrassed or to be vindictive. I’m simply trying to get you to see it from my perspective by (hopefully) putting it in context. Without such concrete examples, my statement would turn into a floating abstraction – which, in many ways, is more accusative. Note that in both cases I actually agreed with your point of view (that is: using decimals; and having the freedom not to vote). But I think the method you employed to defend your stance left something to be desired.

In the decimal thread, a general development rule laid down to ensure consistency (not unlike in purpose to the numerous polls you posted yourself in the Ximax entry, eg plural of staff) was suddenly recast as a battle between authority and logic. (e.g. ‘Authority does not replace logic (arguing from such a standpoint is actually an ethical fallacy)’ & ‘This little elf does NOT sacrifice her beliefs or ideals.’)

In the nomination thread, hmm... well actually here you may have been slightly more justified. So ignore this example. I still think that issue could have been resolved more amicably, but since the freedom to abstain from voting is so closely connected to individual liberties, introducing a moral argument was perhaps not entirely out of place.

But I hope you see the thrust of what I’m saying. That is what makes me uncomfortable. That’s what I meant when I said ‘I increasingly feel as if I have to navigate a minefield around you – as if any critique I make might suddenly explode in my face.’ [end of aside]
)


2. I object to using, for example, ‘your post seems to me to be’ instead of ‘your post is’ on another ground as well: The distinction is artificial.

Whenever two rational people argue/debate, they both believe that the other’s logic has gone askew and that their own interpretation is the correct one. This is so whether or not they sugar-coat their words.

(If one of them doesn’t believe in the correctness of his/her submissions and still continues to argue, then I can only conclude that s/he is being irrational.)

Directness only becomes a problem (that is: directness should only be perceived as offensive) when faced with an irrational person.


3. This is a turn of phrase from which I purposefully stay away. On the one hand, it gives the impression that that person does not have the strength of character to stand behind what he thinks. On the other, I believe it is ultimately more disrespectful than being forthright and saying what’s on your mind directly. In a sense it is as if you are saying: ‘I don’t really trust your ability to handle the situation rationally, so I feel I need to tone down what I’m about to say if we are going to have any chance of conducting a discussion rather than a quarrel’

I do feel strongly about this. Please do not ask me to alter my principles. (Of course I am always open to logical persuasion, so if you wish to debate this particular point I would be happy to open a new thread to talk it through ;) )

This seems to be an area of concern for you – so let’s see if we can find a mutually-workable solution, hmm? Please remember: I am not being accusative when I use direct language. Now that I have explained where I’m coming from, maybe next time you could take it as a mark of respect for your civility and cognitive capabilities rather than an attack on your person? hug


Quote
Re-read your post [“the Offending Post” about research]--I think you will find it condescending and illogical as well.

With hindsight, it was wrong for me to bring in the Talia reference there. I am sorry.

But again this might be yet another issue of perception/difference of interpretation. When I tried to put myself into your shoes and read the post again, the part that drove me round the bend was that first sentence -- whereas your problem seems to be with the penultimate paragraph. I think that paragraph only ignited a quarrel because of the underlying misunderstanding about the research point (see above).

 The irony is that I had actually edited the text before posting because I didn’t want it to seem overly critical... I substituted ‘more background research’ instead of ‘How about doing some background research?’ and thought ‘Just to take a bolts and braces approach I will add an irresistibly endearing emoticon too.’ Oh well - we live we learn.


(III)   BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
That brings me nicely to my final point: giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Rayne, you mentioned that you always give people the benefit of the doubt and that this has gotten your hands burnt on many an occasion before. But please go back and have another look at what was said. Have you really done so this time?

Knowing me and knowing that I do not make it my business to go around shooting verbal arrows at people, had you truly given me the benefit of the doubt and not immediately assumed that you were faced with a personal attack, I think you would not have worded your response in quite the same way.

To my mind, giving someone the benefit of the doubt would have meant writing something along the lines of:

‘I have already done [xyz]. I believe this should have been sufficient. I do not think I am in the wrong here.

Also, your post sounds patronising and offensive [for xyz reason]. I am not sure if that was the intention. Can you please clarify?’



SOLUTIONS:
Finally, what can we do to ensure this never happens again?

If I feel frequently misunderstood, I try to turn my gaze inward & look deeply. I have looked and found a few guidelines that might smooth things between us in the future:

1)   I will not reference other people to make a point – as that forcibly drags them into an argument they might not want to partake in and also compels the other person to respond to not one but two different scenarios. This only prolongs the quarrel.
 
2)   I will try harder to avoid using words with strong negative connotations such as ‘tirade’. Though sometimes this is rather tricky for a non-native speaker. I have been bilingual for a very long time now and I cannot realistically argue that I find it any harder to express myself in English than in my native tongue. Nevertheless, I am not always alive to associations that native speakers might have. In short I will do my best, but I ask that you bear this in mind too.

3)   Please be more careful in distinguishing comments/critiques aimed at your submission/idea/arguments from those aimed at your person.

4)   If something sounds a bit off, please do not automatically assume that there is a campaign being launched against you. Try not to read too much into forum posts. Sometimes people are just being loose with their language. Above all, if something seems amiss, please give friends the benefit of the doubt.

5)   I will strive for greater clarity in instructions/requests. If I need you to undertake a specific task, from now on I will provide a very clear list of what needs to be done. Then we can go through it again to ensure that we are on the same page.

If there is anything we did not have time to do, we should bring this to the other’s attention. Likewise, if we feel we cannot or will not be able to keep up with something owing to our timetable or some other reason, we should notify each other.

6)   Also, whenever we start a discussion/project like this, I think we should summarise the research we’ve carried out. Maybe we can list the entries we looked into, whether we skimmed or read them in detail, which sections we actually studied and which we skipped etc.

We can also repeat this periodically – then we each know what has been done and can alert each other to something that may have been missed.



What do you think? Can we put this incident behind us, and walk towards a brighter horizon?
« Last Edit: 23 January 2010, 05:04:59 by Coren FrozenZephyr » Logged

"Everything should be as simple as possible and not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Is he allowed to do that?"
"I think that comes under the rule of Quia Ego Sic Dico."
"Yes, what does that mean?"
"'Because I say so', I think."
"That doesn't sound like much of a rule!"
"Actually, it's the only one he needs." (Making Money by Terry Pratchett)
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 24 January 2010, 02:00:05 »

I haven’t posted in the last few days, or even logged in much. Like you, I’ve been sorting through the emotions engendered in this debate. Mine, though entirely different from yours, were similarly unpleasant. Though it did launch me into a series of poems. It’s been so long since I’ve written like that.

I have tried to weed out indications of my emotional state as best I can. If you sense a shuddering, it’s a lingering ghost. Just ignore it.



(1) Research: As you have clearly explained, this seems to be a misunderstanding. I agree with your thoughts and interpretations.


(2) Language and misinterpretation: I disagree here with you. Perhaps I can provide an argument to persuade you:

I still recall particular a spring day in fourth grade when Mrs. Murray taught us that facts were different from opinions. This binary exists within all fields, I’ve found, from writing and English to math and sciences. As you mention, there are grammatical forms that clearly state fact. Facts are assumed to be true, and are therefore not questioned: “The square root of nine is three.” You don’t need to qualify it. You don’t need to justify it. You don’t need to prove it. It is a fact, and it wears the grammatical form of a fact.

“Your post is illogical and condescending” is an opinion, but it wears the grammatical form of a fact. In both the places where I requested hedging, (which was in response to your post, when you said “I don't know how to phrase myself so as not to inadvertently cause offence to you..”) were places qhere the lines were visually separated from all other comments. They appeared to state fact, without justification, without proof, without qualification.

When you provide your opinion in this way, without any way for me to form any sort of rebuttal or defense, you have not only given it the form of fact, but also the implication of fact. And because the opinion wears the suit of fact, and because facts generally don’t change and are usually not contradicted, you have given off the impression that it will not change and there is no other way to view the situation.

Of course, I know it is opinion. If I didn’t, I would not have brought it to your attention I understand what it is, but I also understand how it functions (as fact rather than as opinion). By hedging, you soften the statement into an opinion, and convey that you understand it is opinion. It’s a way of allowing room for other, contradictory opinions to emerge.

I do not believe that this argument “assumes that whenever a person expresses an opinion, they must believe that their opinion is the only possible one and that they are closed to hearing anything to the contrary.” I think this impression comes across when you dress your opinion in the garments of fact, though. You do not hedge to increase understanding of your statement, but of your intentions; not for the issue of clarification, but out of respect for the opinions of your interlocutor.

Does this make sense? In the end, the change is not overtly semantic so much as subtly stylistic.


(3) Routine/Technical disagreements being turned into issues of morality: I disagree with you here on two accounts:

First, I believe that you’ve removed these statements from the context to such a degree as to misunderstand their meanings. The issue in the situation where those quotes were pulled from, was not whether or not to use a decimal. This is clearly not an issue of morality, as you know. The issue was whether or not to accept peer-pressure tactics and ethos/pathos-based argument as reasons to follow an course of action. If you remember, I rejected arguments of this nature, and came under fire for it. I interpreted peoples’ responses to my rejection and their scoldings and chidings as attempts to sway me from a stance I felt justified to have: to only accept logos-based arguments. While ethos and pathos appeals have their place in some arguments, I do not feel as though they are appropriate for arguments like the decimals one. When I was asked to give up this criterion, it turned into more of an ideological/epistemic argument.

Second, given the individuality of this incident, I admit I was a bit confused when it was brought into the argument. I wasn’t sure where it was coming from, and it seems to me a bit unfair to judge me based on a few lines pulled out of context.


(4) Benefit of the Doubt: You say you are careful about your words, and I know you are good with them. Your entries are very well-written; your poetry is beautiful. When I speak with individuals who are not as eloquent, I admit to allowing more leniency in my interpretation of what they say. However, I feel as though you know what you are doing with your words. I trust your sensitivity with words, and therefore judge you to a higher standard than I usually would.

However, no one is perfect with words. I have misspoken often in this argument. I will try to be less critical of your words. I understand you are interfacing between two different discourse communities, too. The way you are forced to speak in law, just as the way I am forced to speak in academics, is not always appropriate here. I will try to be more conscious of my words to you, and more understanding of your words to me.


I agree with many of your suggestions. However, it is apparent to me that there are a few things you have misinterpreted, though I am to blame, as I did not portray myself correctly. I do not believe you were ever attacking my person. My issue was with what seemed to be you evaluating my research method as though there was a right or correct method, and mine was wrong (and the implications of this). As you have elaborated, the research method thing was a misunderstanding, but it was the fact of your evaluation that bothered me.

I would humbly ask that comments and critiques stay in the facts. I hate judging and evaluating, and I don’t believe we’ve yet reached a part of the discussion where judging and evaluating is necessary: right now, we’re just amassing possibilities.

I don’t believe summary of research is necessary. I can’t foresee any benefit to this, really, and in the end, it seems as though it would really only be necessary if we lacked trust--like teachers who request summaries of homework readings. If you can trust that I’m doing my research and I can trust you’re doing yours, does it matter? Yes, there may be things we miss, but this is why we’re working together: because two minds are better than one.

“They trade cotton. I don’t think this would be a good fabric, since cotton soaks up water.”
“But the Gondolwain have a special type of cotton that does not have this property. See here.”
“Oh! I missed that! Perhaps...”

This is the kind of discussion I envisioned us having. I feel as though this is a more equable way to engage one another, and pool our knowledge resources. I occasionally feel as though you believe you have more authority, and you assert your authority through your stylistic choices, your requests (notice how you say, “If I need you to undertake a specific task, from now on I will provide a very clear list of what needs to be done.” This, to me, makes it seem as though I should be taking orders from you). Do you see how I might feel as though you do not consider me an equal in this conversation? I do not doubt that you do see me as an equal, but the language you use suggests a hierarchy, and makes me uncomfortable.



Without going into details, here’s an Italian/Petrarchian sonnet I composed last night, after reading an article about the metaphors for argument. It’s still a bit rough, but it seems appropriate:


They say each argument is like a fight:
each chosen word, a sharpened sword we wield
(or else an arrow, or a plated shield),
Each line of reasoning, an armored knight.
We send our armies in with murd’ring might
to scatter our opponents o’er the field
in bitter battles--wars--and never yield.
Such arguments we wage in hate and spite.

I cannot act by this perspective, lest
I cause you anger, hurt, or greater harm.
Let me begin again--a second chance--
but with a new perspective. Let me rest
my hand upon your shoulder; place your arm
about my waist. Let argument be dance.
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Coren FrozenZephyr
Moderator
****

Gained Aura: 157
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3.357



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 24 January 2010, 04:02:31 »

I am glad we could come to an agreement. :)

A few quick replies and then I feel we can draw this to a close. By this point these poor elves must already feel quite abandoned!


Re 2) Language: I must say I am not really swayed. However, since this linguistic debate is at the very fringes of this discussion, it seems inefficient to pursue it any further.

Quote
Do you see how I might feel as though you do not consider me an equal in this conversation? I do not doubt that you do see me as an equal, but the language you use suggests a hierarchy, and makes me uncomfortable.

Given that you know that I see you as an equal and given that I've just confirmed that Olympian detachment is not intended, I still think bringing in references to hierarchies is uncalled for.

However, the fact remains that this makes you feel uncomfortable. And it is relatively simple for me to prevent that. Therefore I will do my best to adjust it accordingly. Should there be a slip of the tongue, please alert me gently.  hug



Quote
I understand you are interfacing between two different discourse communities, too. The way you are forced to speak in law, just as the way I am forced to speak in academics, is not always appropriate here.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here!



Quote
I would humbly ask that comments and critiques stay in the facts.

Agreed :)



I only suggested the summary because I thought it would help us be more efficient: we would not unwittingly read the same entry - akin to some sort of division of labour, if you like. But it is not essential. If you feel uncomfortable with the idea, we can simply drop it.




Quote
“They trade cotton. I don’t think this would be a good fabric, since cotton soaks up water.”
“But the Gondolwain have a special type of cotton that does not have this property. See here.”
“Oh! I missed that! Perhaps...”

This is the kind of discussion I envisioned us having.

I agree whole-heartedly! number1


I would like to separate the posts relating to our quarrel from the Cloud Elves and relagate them to a new thread. What do you think?

(EDIT: typo: "and relate them to a new" >>> "relegate them to a new")


PS: Sorry it's taking so long to respond. I'm (attempting) to cook and eat as I write. So my attention is divided between the three. Consequently, the language is a bit choppy and slightly more brusque than usual.  buck 

PS2:

Quote
Your entries are very well-written; your poetry is beautiful.

Why, thank you! Though I wonder if you may be mistaking me with someone else - I think I've only written three poems in my life!  Big Grin
« Last Edit: 24 January 2010, 04:04:06 by Coren FrozenZephyr » Logged

"Everything should be as simple as possible and not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Is he allowed to do that?"
"I think that comes under the rule of Quia Ego Sic Dico."
"Yes, what does that mean?"
"'Because I say so', I think."
"That doesn't sound like much of a rule!"
"Actually, it's the only one he needs." (Making Money by Terry Pratchett)
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 24 January 2010, 05:00:23 »

Perhaps I've gone about this the wrong way. Let me enter your style of discourse and go from there. (I am supposedly the rhetorician, after all  buck)

A few quick replies and then I feel we can draw this to a close.
I still feel as though there are some issues we do not see eye-to-eye on, and that need to be resolves before we can move forward.


Quote
Re 2) Language: I must say I am not really swayed. However, since this linguistic debate is at the very fringes of this discussion, it seems inefficient to pursue it any further.
The significance of this seems apparent to me. By dressing your opinions as facts, you prevent me from being able to respond to them or contradict them. I am certain that opinions and fact will both be presented in the discussion to follow, and therefore this is very important. I would prefer that, when you disagree with a line of reasoning like the one I've presented, that you respond to it in kind so that we can see where the differing opinions lie.  :)


Quote
Given that you know that I see you as an equal and given that I've just confirmed that Olympian detachment is not intended, I still think bringing in references to hierarchies is uncalled for.
I think bringing in hierarchies is called for, because it accurately expresses how I feel when you talk to me some times. And I'm not sure where you mentioned Olympian attachment, or what this is in reference to.

Quote
However, the fact remains that this makes you feel uncomfortable. And it is relatively simple for me to prevent that. Therefore I will do my best to adjust it accordingly. Should there be a slip of the tongue, please alert me gently.
I will. Thank you for understanding.  hug


Quote
I only suggested the summary because I thought it would help us be more efficient: we would not unwittingly read the same entry - akin to some sort of division of labour, if you like. But it is not essential. If you feel uncomfortable with the idea, we can simply drop it.
It's not so much comfort as efficiency. I think we should both do what research we can, so we come to the table better prepared.



Quote
I would like to separate the posts relating to our quarrel from the Cloud Elves and relagate them to a new thread. What do you think?
If I may speak bluntly (and address briefly my emotional states): this whole argument has been a horrid nightmare for me--one I hope I will never again have to relive. As far as I'm concerned, all those posts can be deleted.

Quote
PS: Sorry it's taking so long to respond. I'm (attempting) to cook and eat as I write. So my attention is divided between the three. Consequently, the language is a bit choppy and slightly more brusque than usual.  buck 
No worries. I'm multi-tasking as well. If you want to chat about this, I'm on MSN.
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Kalína Dalá'isyrás
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 32
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 752


Dalá'isyrás


View Profile Homepage
« Reply #11 on: 24 January 2010, 05:35:35 »

Ok - my overall observations. You are now discussing moot points, and points which you may *never* come to an agreement on because of personal preference and experiences. Yes, you have both agreed to be careful of how you say things, but each needs to take the initiative in not taking so quick of an offense to words.

What brought you both here is assumptions, something which is extremely dangerous for anyone wanting to work as a team with someone else. This 'argument' has gotten to the point of childishness, unnecessary as the points left are ones which will not be easily persuaded either way and lead to more problems than solutions.

You guys have already agreed on the most important issues, so my advice is to just drop this all together - or talk one on one off the boards where you aren't waiting on posts for each other to work on this. Nothing is being accomplished, and more harm is being done than solved.

Just my humble opinion.
Logged

Insanity is only a perception made by those who have yet to attain its greatness. While those of us who have already stepped inside its bounds find bliss in our utter madness.
Draconic Development Schedule
Rayne (Alýr)
Dreamress
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 117
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 4.466



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 24 January 2010, 05:53:18 »

Kalina, with all due respect, I ask that Coren and I be allowed to judge what is "childish" and what is not, and reach an agreement on our own. You are evaluating and judging this situation with your own value-based framework--and evaluation/judgment is what started this argument in the first place.

While you are entitled to your opinion, this debate has nothing to do with you. This is a personal discussion about how  Coren and I can better communicate with one another. I would humbly ask you stay out of discussions that don't concern you, lest you make things worse.
Logged

"There is much misjudgment in the world. Now, I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so I must be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem..." -Schmendrick the Magician, The Last Unicorn
Kalína Dalá'isyrás
Santh. Member
***

Gained Aura: 32
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 752


Dalá'isyrás


View Profile Homepage
« Reply #13 on: 24 January 2010, 05:56:00 »

Well, in all honesty, you are involving the entire boards with having the discussion here, making others create opinions about each of you which may not be good.

This has gotten way beyond the point of resolution, and as you said, a personal discussion/argument. My point still stands it should be taken off the boards for both of your reputations. And for the sanity of everyone.

The entry isn't being completed, and you are most likely driving each other away as friends and discouraging anyone from really wanting to work with either of your with entries.
« Last Edit: 24 January 2010, 05:59:03 by Kalína Dalá'isyrás » Logged

Insanity is only a perception made by those who have yet to attain its greatness. While those of us who have already stepped inside its bounds find bliss in our utter madness.
Draconic Development Schedule
Coren FrozenZephyr
Moderator
****

Gained Aura: 157
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3.357



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 24 January 2010, 06:06:33 »

Rayne, I feel this is as far as I can go, in terms of either compromising or discussing this. Yes, there still are things on which we do not see eye to eye - but these are attitudes and principles which have evolved over time. Neither of us can hope to change the other's outlook on life overnight.

I enjoy working with you, and I hope we can go back to the Cloud Elves. The best I can do at this stage is to agree to disagree on the remaining issues. If this is unacceptable to you, I understand. In that case, the only thing we can do is to go our separate ways.

To me, no discussion is worth continuing to wound people I care about. I would much rather stop and take my leave before all the bridges are burnt and a point of no return is reached. I will keep you in my good thoughts - I hope you recover soon from all the trauma this has engendered hug

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.



EDIT: Ah, I see Kalina posted something whilst I was typing this. I'll go and read that now
Logged

"Everything should be as simple as possible and not simpler." Albert Einstein

"Is he allowed to do that?"
"I think that comes under the rule of Quia Ego Sic Dico."
"Yes, what does that mean?"
"'Because I say so', I think."
"That doesn't sound like much of a rule!"
"Actually, it's the only one he needs." (Making Money by Terry Pratchett)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Recent
[27 March 2019, 00:01:57]

[21 June 2018, 14:28:00]

[31 May 2017, 06:35:55]

[06 May 2017, 05:27:04]

[03 April 2017, 01:15:03]

[26 March 2017, 12:48:25]

[15 March 2017, 02:23:07]

[15 March 2017, 02:20:28]

[15 March 2017, 02:17:52]

[14 March 2017, 20:23:43]

[06 February 2017, 04:53:35]

[31 January 2017, 08:45:52]

[15 December 2016, 15:50:49]

[26 November 2016, 23:16:38]

[27 October 2016, 07:42:01]

[27 September 2016, 18:51:05]

[11 September 2016, 23:17:33]

[11 September 2016, 23:15:27]

[11 September 2016, 22:58:56]

[03 September 2016, 22:22:23]
Members
Total Members: 1019
Latest: lolanixon
Stats
Total Posts: 144586
Total Topics: 11052
Online Today: 38
Online Ever: 700
(23 January 2020, 20:05:39)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 25
Total: 25

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2005, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Theme based on Cerberus with Risen adjustments by Bloc and Krelia
Modified By Artimidor for The Santharian Dream
gfx
gfxgfx gfxgfx