Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
I'm not going to edit my post because you changed your mind.
|
What's ironic is that your accusation of dishonesty itself appears dishonest. By accusing me of "changing my mind," you ignore the acknowledged intention of public revision and moderation, which is to be clear and polite for the sake of civility. This seems a rather suspect lapse of understanding. Are you forgetting the forum's context in your zeal to make accusations, or are you misrepresenting your profession in order to sound authoritative? Out of respect, I'll assume you've simply forgotten the forum-specific context of my original post.
No one asked you to "edit your post," nor did I "change my mind" about what I'd said. I merely did what any moderator on any board would prefer: Substituted a different word to make the possibility of charged misinterpretations less likely.
You appear to refuse to accept this because you wish to fight. I find it difficult to believe you haven't understood.
Your refusal to allow my explanation of my own intent as to my own words, and your subsequent rejection of my revision -- prior to your first post -- in the name of tact, is not credible. It is, rather, ad hominem barking.
You then continue this ad hominem barking with remarkable gusto:
Quote:
|
Oh, btw, you mention that "professionals can't afford to have it in digital form", all the while accusing me of claiming that my way is the right way (in other words, that is).
|
Note this irony: The person who insists he's interested in sticking to a poster's original words now insists on substituting his own. Why? Because he infers that his are a
more accurate representation of what the OP is thinking than what
the OP has actually said as well as
the subsequent explication the OP gave as to his own intentions.
AGP:
I didn't say that my way was the right way, nor that yours was wrong. I said that
note-taking by writing in books and manuscripts is a standard way in which students and manuscript editors have worked traditionally. It isn't the only approved way but rather the most common way.
For that reason,
common practices of students and professionals should be taken into consideration when designing a reader's note-taking software. When a device is created for the common market, common use must be considered whether it is one's own way of working or not, and whether it is the "rightest" way or not.
The presumption of superiority on my part is entirely yours. The pitch of the accusation suggests some sort of history that predates my participation on this thread.
My original post was friendly, my second, polite. Your consistent attempts to degrade the level of the conversation, and your seizing on your own suspicions and theories as to others' motives as if they were facts, don't speak well of your reliability.
For all I know, you might be a tremendous journalist, but your best side hasn't been displayed here. You've been hectoring me, some faceless guy on the internet, over harmlessly intended word choices. I doubt your readers would find that sort of thing interesting.
The pitch of your indignation has had nothing to do with anything I've said, implied or felt. You need to take responsibility for your own emotions and mindset.
And this conversation needs to return to its earlier mode of mutual good will.