 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
38.112.153.190
In Reply to: Re: "responded somewhat haughtily" posted by Christine Tham on February 15, 2007 at 19:52:19:
To me, whether bald or bare is the "correct" translation is hardly important at this stage. The reason this has escalated has little to do with that the answer to that inquiry, but with what Geoff's intent was in asking the question and your reaction to him asking it and then answering it subsequently.To anyone who read Geoff's post carefully, it was obvious from the outset that he did not know the answer when he first posted the question and was simply curious if others did. No one here knew the answer (including me because I did not then know the title in Russian). When Geoff saw a post by Victor (owner of BAT and a frequent poster) on the amp forum, he stepped in and asked Victor the same question so he could announce the answer to his question here, which he did. He was simply, and I believe politely, closing the loop on his inquiry.
You then miscontrued his actions as a challenge to Duilaywer. When Geoff explained that that was not his intent, you suggested he post more clearly in the future rather than admit you didn't read the threads carefully. Then, when he attempted to defend himself, as anyone would, you accuse him of being defensive and haughty. Wow.
Follow Ups:
*** You then miscontrued his actions as a challenge to Duilaywer. ***Can you show me exactly where I "miscontrued [sic] his actions"? Asking a question is seeking clarification, not necessarily assuming a position. If you are implying that I have malicious intent in asking the question, then I would put it to you that you are misconstruing my action.
For reference, this is what I actually said:
*** It's hard to infer intention over the Internet ***
in other words, I don't want to assume or make any inferences, therefore I am asking.
*** and arguably your posts could be interpreted as you already knowing the answer but issuing a challenge to Duilawyer, hence my question. ***
I was offering this as an example (and a deliberately non valid one) to show why I was asking the question.
Note: by me saying "arguably" I am NOT saying I am arguing that to be case. In fact, as I explained to you, clearly this interpretation is NOT valid, because why would Metralla challenge Duilawyer for saying something he believes to be correct? It should be clear from my post that it was an interpretation I considered, but then discarded, and then decided to seek clarification.
I think before you accuse someone of not reading posts carefully, perhaps you should read posts more carefully, too. Physician, heal thyself!
I read your posts carefully. You are now omitting much of what you said, such as referring to Geoff as being hauty and defensive. I'm not engaging in this discourse further.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
