Oh, I understood it alright

I referred to my reaction to what you said, and why I responded as I did.

I said nothing about your intentions in posting, and am left wondering why you would think that I had.

(As an aside, it makes little sense for me to comment on your intentions. I do not know them, and I barely know you. Occasionally you may make suggestive indications - for instance your "less cordially" close suggests at the moment you are unlikely to be filled with warmth and good cheer towards me - but even then attempted mind reading is likely to lead me astray.)

Therefore without describing your intentions, allow me to describe your behaviour as I saw it. While admitting that you don't know the facts, you have so far suggested that the liar involved may have not pursued a degree because of some extreme reason (eg she got pregnant at an early age), said directly that were it your judgement call this wouldn't be a big deal, have suggested that we ask ourselves whether it is OK to lie to the Gestapo, have said that a person who is (by your judgement*) extremely moral was willing to lie in court (in what are still unclear circumstances, over an issue that you haven't really described), and have been surprised at how many of us are so old-fashioned that we actually value something so silly as honestly. Oh, and you have indicated that I might have trouble comprehending this sequence of events.

For my part I have pointed out that moral relativism means something different than just being able to invent convenient morals on demand, indicated that I am a moral relativist (an unfortunate consequence of my atheism - lacking any belief in the usual sources of absolute moral certitude I have had to accept that others may have as good a basis for theirs as I have for mine), and indicated that I don't particularly enjoy what looks to me like emotionally charged rhetorical tangents (cf the Godwin reference above) followed by disclaimers.

Whatever the intention may have been, the result came across to me as disingenuous. If you do not intend to come across as disingenuous, then I suggest paying more attention to the emotional overtones of your examples to lessen the changes that you accidentally do. If you did intend to be disingenuous, then shame on you.

In my books, doing things which are likely to rile people followed by a disclaimer is like hitting someone and then apologizing for it. In either case it wasn't a good thing to do, and while it is understandable that it happens from time to time by accident, it is something to try to avoid. When done by someone else to me, it is something that I sometimes will encourage them to avoid in turn.

Does that clarify my position and impressions?

Regards,
Ben

* I have no idea what makes a person moral in your judgement. Is it readiness to confront and undermine official but corrupt authority with civil disobedience? Is it the iron silence of a Sir Thomas Moore who will not lie to save his life? Either may be respected, but knowing which applies is necessary to say whether your judgement of moral correlates with my judgement of personal integrity.

Post #98,963 by ben_tilly 4/27/03 3:56:38 PM Reply	Oh, I understood it alright I just don't think that attempting to change the subject followed by a half-hearted attempt at a disclaimer really excuses attempting to obscure the topic under discussion by changing the subject in the first place. Further, claiming to have advanced degrees that you don't is a very different matter from the normal run-of-the-mill shading of truth that goes on in most resumes. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #98,965 by rcareaga 4/27/03 4:31:31 PM Reply	am I assumed, then, to be defending the Beast with the Phony Diplomas? I am not. And for your part, who are you to say whether my disclaimers are wholehearted or half-hearted? --damned cheeky of you, say I. As to "attempting to obscure the topic," you may have found my remarks obscure owing either to limitations of my expression or your comprehension, but be good enough to refrain from imputing motives quite so freely. less cordially still, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Post #98,972 by ben_tilly 4/27/03 6:06:20 PM Reply	Speaking of imputing motives... I referred to my reaction to what you said, and why I responded as I did. I said nothing about your intentions in posting, and am left wondering why you would think that I had. (As an aside, it makes little sense for me to comment on your intentions. I do not know them, and I barely know you. Occasionally you may make suggestive indications - for instance your "less cordially" close suggests at the moment you are unlikely to be filled with warmth and good cheer towards me - but even then attempted mind reading is likely to lead me astray.) Therefore without describing your intentions, allow me to describe your behaviour as I saw it. While admitting that you don't know the facts, you have so far suggested that the liar involved may have not pursued a degree because of some extreme reason (eg she got pregnant at an early age), said directly that were it your judgement call this wouldn't be a big deal, have suggested that we ask ourselves whether it is OK to lie to the Gestapo, have said that a person who is (by your judgement) extremely moral was willing to lie in court (in what are still unclear circumstances, over an issue that you haven't really described), and have been surprised at how many of us are so old-fashioned that we actually value something so silly as honestly. Oh, and you have indicated that I might have trouble comprehending this sequence of events. For my part I have pointed out that moral relativism means something different than just being able to invent convenient morals on demand, indicated that I am a moral relativist (an unfortunate consequence of my atheism - lacking any belief in the usual sources of absolute moral certitude I have had to accept that others may have as good a basis for theirs as I have for mine), and indicated that I don't particularly enjoy what looks to me like emotionally charged rhetorical tangents (cf the Godwin reference above) followed by disclaimers. Whatever the intention may have been, the result came across to me as disingenuous. If you do not intend to come across as disingenuous, then I suggest paying more attention to the emotional overtones of your examples to lessen the changes that you accidentally do. If you did intend to be disingenuous, then shame on you. In my books, doing things which are likely to rile people followed by a disclaimer is like hitting someone and then apologizing for it. In either case it wasn't a good thing to do, and while it is understandable that it happens from time to time by accident, it is something to try to avoid. When done by someone else to me, it is something that I sometimes will encourage them to avoid in turn. Does that clarify my position and impressions? Regards, Ben I have no idea what makes a person moral in your judgement. Is it readiness to confront and undermine official but corrupt authority with civil disobedience? Is it the iron silence of a Sir Thomas Moore who will not lie to save his life? Either may be respected, but knowing which applies is necessary to say whether your judgement of moral correlates with my judgement of personal integrity. "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #98,992 by rcareaga 4/27/03 9:13:32 PM Reply	(shrug) We appear to be doomed to speak here at cross-purposes, one or both of us misconstruing the other's remarks to the point where no effective exchange is taking place. Perhaps someone else more simpatico will turn up here to help you develop these themes--clearly I'm not the man to do it. cordially, "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."

Welcome to IWETHEY!