In a message dated 2/18/99 11:22:23 AM Central Standard Time, konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
<< I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. What I meant was that you were using complicated terminology to obfuscate your belief that <reason> is the judge of all things.>>
You didn't offend me. There is a certain humorous futility, however, in trying to explain myself to somebody that won't (or can't?) listen, and yet at the same time demands that I explain myself. I have a pretty good sense of fun about those things though. The world is simply full of people that do that on a daily basis. I am sure I have done that too.
>>But, I admit, I may have misunderstood you.<<
That's a start.
>>>Another part of the problem
>is that you are wrong about these imagined thought processes.
Prove it. Do you claim perfect introspection...or are you making an assertion?<<
Ah, another demand that I "explain myself"! I am not sure what you mean by "perfect introspection." Hmmm, how to respond THIS time??
>>You've been acting a bit erratic...what with this "LogicNazi" stuff<<
Do you feel uncomfortable or threatened when I do that?
>>...so is it illogical for me to deduce that you are feeling threatened and
uncomfortable?<<
That would be one possible conclusion, I feel certain that there are others.
>>One doesn't express strength of will by shouting.<<
No, but it is a handy thing to know how to do, and to know many different ways of doing it.
>>Actually, after discussing this with her, she has become much
more comfortable saying "do what I say!" And you know
what? I don't mind obeying her commands.<<
This opens up a whole realm of imaginative possibilities.
>>I'm trying to communicate with you. I don't claim to be perfect
or a brilliant writer. I depend on you to help me make my meaning
clear.<<
I am trying too. Communication between strangers on very philosophical topics can be very tricky and very complicated. But it can be done.
>>But, Jake, I'm not confused. I know what I think and I know who
I am. I don't require special words or special masks. I may be
wrong, but if so, I am confidently definitively wrong.<<
We all use masks and we all use words. It's best we accept that and learn to use them well.
>>>There is simply no point in continuing, unless and until you consider the
>possibility that I am not merely playing semantic games.
I retract: you are not "playing semantic games". It was an annoying thing for me to say, and I sincerely apologize. If someone had said the same to me, I would have been angry...so I should know better.<<
It is natural thing to say when you are frustrated with another's use of the language. No apologies are necessary especially if I had been intentionally frustrating. The parts where you called it "semantics games" I was not being intentionally frustrating. My use of "Logic Nazi" was intentionally frustrating, though I did warn you that it was "tongue in cheek". I make no apologies. It was truth in advertising. Always read the warning labels before deciding to ingest.
Next message.
-Jake