Re: Richard Ulrich used FOUR posts to distort one post in one thread
- From: Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:41:31 -0400
- This post has some comments on Bob's postings,
which do extend beyond his immediate questions.
On 4 Jun 2006 20:33:46 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Ulrich wrote:
What was written add NOTHING to what had already been said.
Richard, why do YOU have to interprete everything for everyone
and not let THEM decide for themselves?
- see below -
[snip]
RU> >
Bob >Appropriate enough to Jens. Incomplete.
The EVERYONE (and the "yourself") there meant every reader
in this newsgroup! Talk about me not reading well. Why should
readers in this group need Richard Ulrich's repeated coaching
for THEM to decide for themselves?
Bob expresses this indefatigable interest on why I
comment on how to read his posts.
REASONS.
Bob's Replies (especially ones to me) look a lot worse if you
read them for organization or in relation to an *argument* from
the other poster. So, I point out the parts that are just fine,
and the other part where we differ. The argument so far.
- The converse is also true, that Bob's writing looks *better*
if you simply scan for high points. In that case, the reader
catches the "true items", which might be repeated over
and over, without noting their irrelevance. I want to help
readers avoid that error.
I could add, commentary about the discussions is effective in
reaching an audience. I could add, the ability to describe the
progress of the argument (and, to do so to your own benefit)
is a minor skill in rhetoric which Bob seems to lack.
Oh, he can sometimes take apart previous posts, "I said, ... ",
"you said, ...", and so on, tediously nailing a point -- if he
*did* grasp the gist of each of the posts in question.
It works well on occasion, but far too often degenerates
into "I didn't say THAT" where Bob missed it.
Bob writes much that is stream-of-consciousness, and he
writes at great length. The reader needs organization.
*I* need some organization. I am providing my own
perception of the-dialog-so-far, partly because Bob has
extreme difficulty in pursuing "dialogs" -- He wants to post
his lecture, and everything else is "wrong". His posts do not
create an organized argument.
He does not see "parts" well. He cannot see the articulation
of an argument. His arguments seem to be "A, therefore B",
complete and no details. My reply is often, "I see A-prime,
not A. Here's why...." Bob replies, "No, its A, therefore B".
So, he repeats a lot that is never in dispute. And ignores
or misunderstands the rest. He *can* hit a point so that
it deserves more discussion, or so that I get interested in
writing a discussion. I defend good statistics; I defend myself.
Much, I ignore.
By writing any over-view, I indicate the track that *I* am on,
and why. If Bob does address any piece of that, then, fine.
Is my comment, "incomplete", really intrusive to the reader?
It emphasized that most of his repetition was not relevant.
I haven't given up hope that Bob may some day have an
epiphany, but for a single message, I address my replies
to the wider readership.
Why are you NOT following up with defending your ERRORS
(which you denied that they were errors) in the CV thread, even
after my repeated reminder for you to write down the hypotheses
being tested?
I once asked Bob the opposite -- Why wouldn't he wait
longer, so he could give more thoughtful replies?
That's the way it works for everyone, isn't it?
Then I figured out: the immediate stream-of-consciousness
is the only reply he has, no matter how long he waits.
And he doesn't like to edit, because that costs continuity.
RF > when he should be answering to my challenge of his ERRORS
RF > of statement in the "coefficient of variation" thread. to write
RF > down the hypotheses to be tested, when he tried his usual
RF > verbal obfuscation.
I don't know what lines he is referring to here, but -
"verbal obfuscation" - that's how he perceives "reasoning."
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Richard Ulrich used THREE posts to distort one post in one thread
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Richard Ulrich used THREE posts to distort one post in one thread
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Richard Ulrich used FOUR posts to distort one post in one thread
- From: Reef Fish
- Richard Ulrich used THREE posts to distort one post in one thread
- Prev by Date: How to calculate this probability ditribution ?
- Next by Date: Re: Richard Ulrich used FIVE posts to distort one post in one thread
- Previous by thread: Re: Richard Ulrich used FOUR posts to distort one post in one thread
- Next by thread: Re: Richard Ulrich used FIVE posts to distort one post in one thread
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
