?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Yesterday's news - shadows of echoes of memories of songs
j4
j4
Yesterday's news
Read 12 | Write
Comments
j4 From: j4 Date: November 18th, 2010 11:59 am (UTC) (Link)
unimpeccably correct

I'm not sure if this is incredibly apt or incredibly ironic, but I feel compelled to point out that you mean "impeccably" (or possibly "unimpeachably"?). :-)

I try not to pick at little details of people's posts unless the details are really important or I know them well enough to know they won't mind. I think among some of the picky pedants there's a big danger of misreading the point of a post, and responding to an implicit request for personal sympathy as if it was a request for some kind of impersonal proofreading of an academic paper, with nothing but corrections/facts/fixes (I'm not saying I'm never guilty of this myself -- I like fixing things & find it hard to resist!).

I do think it's a bad thing when people get bogged down in the tiny details at the expense of the bigger picture; but everybody does it, because the tiny details are the things they can get hold of. On the other hand, I think that tactic is often used quite deliberately as a way of derailing and undermining the argument, on the basis that if someone's wrong (or their rightness can be called into question) about a tiny fact then it immediately makes the rest of their argument invalid.

I suspect (thinking out loud now) it also makes a difference that the small points are much easier to stick in a short comment, whereas a big-picture response would probably merit a whole separate post (so the comments on a post may look disproportionately full of trivia, because the more in-depth responses are happening elsewhere).

BTW thank you for pointing me at http://maddox.xmission.com/, it keeps making me LOL!
cartesiandaemon From: cartesiandaemon Date: November 18th, 2010 01:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
point out that you mean "impeccably"

Oops *blush* apparently over-negating things is a natural human urge, one I have not risen above :)

everybody does it

Yes, good point, it's another irresistible...

I think that tactic is often used quite deliberately as a way of derailing and undermining the argument,

Indeed. If I were deliberately playing to an audience that would be effective; in fact, I'm not, and don't really want to be :( I trust most people on my friendslist not to be _deliberately_ derailing, even if it comes across that way, but many people are, and even my friendslist is probably not free of it.

unless the details are really important or I know them well enough to know they won't mind.

Yeah. I mean, enjoy it when people are inspired by a post to say something interesting about some aspect of it, or to helpfully amplify some factual matter therein. But it happens I feel a lot happier about it if they something like "by the way" or "I agree with your point but" or "I don't feel qualified to comment more generally but" or "I'm sorry to completely derail the discussion based on a passing comment you probably didn't mean, but I think it's actually important to".

But some people just launch into an extensive rebuttal of sentence 2, paragraph 5, and I feel like, yes, maybe that was not the ABSOLUTELY MOST LITERALLY TRUE way I could have said that, and I would never say correctness doesn't MATTER, but methodically trimming my analogies of hyperbole or depth is not the most interesting or helpful contribution they could have made.

I've toyed with the idea of screening comments on semi-serious posts, to see if not having them appear immediately cuts down on instant-gratification comments and promotes only ones where people actually want to say something. I know, if there's even a five minute delay in posting, I tend to rethink useless comments at the cost of only a small loss in maybe-relevant ones. But I didn't want to seem to inhibit conversation, and didn't bother.

BTW thank you for pointing me at http://maddox.xmission.com/, it keeps making me LOL!

:) Thank you, I thought it was hilarious, despite or because of being the opposite of what most people I know prefer to do (a bit like Bill&Ted). I think it's that it's so obviously so FAR over the top, you correctly interpret his extreme vehemence as importance, rather than literal truth :)
Read 12 | Write