[AGB]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

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.

You countered my argument by opening with "I changed my post". It seems the only reason you made that statement and changed your post was because you changed your mind and wanted me to somehow make a concession.

This seems a rather suspect lapse of understanding for a journalist, which you've stated is your profession. Are you ignoring your training as a journalist in the service of making false accusations, or are you misrepresenting your vocation in order to sound authoritative?

Neither. The ad hominems you spew are ridiculous. You did change your mind, and thus the post. And you did so, after I had responded and made a point out of your change of heart. I don't need to misrepresent anything to deduce that you changed your mind. However, it's funny how you first claim that "professionals need to take notes in the books", and when I mention I too am a professional, albeit it in a rather different field than you, then you attack that as if you know more about journalism than I do, and you top it off, by pretending I am somehow being dishonest and misrepresenting my vocation. Seriously, here's a number. Go pick up your integrity at the door.

Out of respect, I'll assume you've simply forgotten the forum-specific context of my original post.

The "forum specific"? Are you freaking kidding me? This is in the news section. It's a thread about note taking with digital aids.

Once again, you're trying to make out that I am the one missing something.

No one asked you to "edit your post,"

True, you didn't ask explicitly, but since it was a rather prominent part of your reply to my counter, it seems it was prudent for you to make it very clear that you had changed your post.

nor did I "change my mind" about what I'd said.

You did. You explicitly went back to rephrase it. You only did so because you changed your mind of what to write. If not, you would have merely corrected typos or whatever. Not changed what you said.

I merely did what any moderator on any board would prefer: Substituted a different word to make the possibility of hurt feelings or misinterpretation less likely.

And you made it a point to tell me, rather than address what I said.

You appear to refuse to accept this because you wish to fight. I find it difficult to believe you haven't understood.

No, I just really dislike when people try to pretend that their personal preferences is how everyone - not only in their field, but in every field that even has a hint of the same - is working and doing things, and how this way is the only way and the right way. "Because, you know, I'm a professional, and therefore my personal preferences applies to any professionals"

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.

I'm sorry, but you accusing me of ad hominems is ridiculous given what you have just managed.

You then continue this ad hominem barking with remarkable gusto:

There is no ad hominem there.

Note this irony: The person who insists he's interested in sticking to a poster's original words now insists on substituting his own.

Say what? I am not saying I'm particular interested in sticking with particular words. I am saying that I have no desire nor interest in revising my posts because the person I counter with said post has changed his mind and make a point out of it.

Secondly, where am I substituting words? Oh, you mean I paraphrased a tiny bit of what you said, and made it clear I was paraphrasing? Yes, that surely smacks of intellectual dishonesty, doesn't it?

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.

No, I am paraphrasing because the same quote again and again from you all the while you trying to run from it, would be boring.

You have time and time again refused to see any positive side to digital. You first tried to make an appeal to authority, by claiming "professionals", people who relied on note taking and notes, needed to have them on paper.

You then tried to seem rational by listing your preferences and fears and pass them off as a need (i.e. digital will break down, you will only have them in one place, what if the device breaks down when you are to begin a paper, and so on).

And when that too failed, you resorted to questioning how good I am at my job and other such idiocy.

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 taken notes traditionally. It isn't the only approved way but rather the most common way.

Quite different from what you have said through here. At least you have now moderated it in two ways: You have limited the scope of the notion of "professionals", and you have limited the notion of digital being evil (it can fail, etc.) to "it's tradition".

For that reason, common practices of students and editors 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.

Yet that was not your argument. Your argument was that having a device for notes were bad. The main argument was that it could crash.

The presumption of superiority on my part is entirely yours.

No, it was pretty clear from post one.

The pitch of the accusation suggests some sort of history that predates my participation on this thread.

No it merely means I get annoyed when exposed to someone trying to declare his "professional" is the way as you did from the get-go.

My original post was friendly, my second, polite.

No it wasn't. And no to the second too.

Your consistent attempts to degrade the level of the conversation,

Although you changed your mind and changed your post, you pretty much degraded it yourself by opening the ball with the argument that you were a professional, and that we professionals needed to make notes in the books, and that "hobbyists" didn't have such needs.

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.

My reliability is usually spot on. The reason is that I actually read what people write instead of trying to play the persecution (or victim) card, when someone disagrees with me.

You know, like you have done, while changing what you "meant" numerous times in this discussion.

For all I know, you might be a tremendous journalist, but your best side hasn't been displayed here.

I'm so sorry that I have shown you that not all journalists are so understanding and soft when it comes to their private life. Btw, nice ad hominem as I've come to expect from you.


[quite]You've hectoring me, some faceless guy on the internet, over harmlessly intended word choices.[/quote]
Yes, by all means play the victim card again.

I doubt your readers would find that sort of thing interesting.

You do? I guess you also doubt that an novel author's forum posts should be full fledged books, or that a tv presenter should talk that way going about his daily non-work business.


Oh, I thought you had finished:

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.

I am taking full responsibility for my emotions and "mindset". Yet another thinly veiled ad hominem.

And this conversation needs to return to its earlier mode of mutual good will.

This conversation just needs to end now that you have conceded that only in a very narrow definition of "professional" does your argument pertain, and that it only does because of "tradition", and not the claims of students and teachers and other professionals not being able to rely on technology for their notes.

Keep it up.