|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Martin's opaqueness
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This isn't a comment exactly on Barnabas62's hosting, but I really feel that Martin is going too far on this thread and that we're in danger of allowing Martin's opaqueness hide his oh-so-clever knowing personal jabs at his opponents.
It is no secret that I fundamentally disagree with Jamat. However the discussion has been thoroughly derailed by Martin's continued attempts to engage with Jamat in some parallel universe where everyone knows what the hell he is talking about.
Martin not only castigates Jamat in terms that are thoroughly incomprehensible, he then appears to continue to kick him (Jamat) for not replying in kind or answering his inexplicable questions.
In my view Jamat has made a considerable effort to engage and to be accused of being the first to use personal attack just because his posts are actually comprehensible whereas Martin's are only when you've got to hand whatever dictionary he's quoting from is quite perverse.
Sorry, this has gone on far enough.
It is quite simple: Martin should say what he means and not assume that those who do not reply in terms are (a) less intelligent or (b) not engaging. It may just be that we've all lost the will to live when trying to uncover whatever the hell Martin is on about.
If someone does not reply to Martin, he (Martin) should not badger them, belittle them or demean their posts by burying them beneath paragraphs containing complex words and concepts that he (Martin) has not fully explained and which are not obvious to anyone else other than Martin.
I'm not asking for discussion which can be understood by 9 year olds, I am asking for a discussion that isn't always dictated by the ideas of Martin because this higher degree educated idiot would quite like to engage with the topic rather than waste time trying to untangle wtf Martin is saying.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Is the main point of your question about hosting, or is it about Martin?
Because if it's about Martin then I'll move this thread to Hell.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Hosting. Just because Martin's personal attacks are opaque doen't mean that they're not personal attacks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Martin can be opaque but that particular line wasn't. All he was saying is that Jamat's thesis was elaborately worked out and completely wrong.
The analogy is with Ptolemy's geocentric theory of the Solar System. An orrery is a model of the solar system. Baroque art is characterised by attention to minute detail and, as an added bonus, was the sort of thing favoured by the Papacy when they were trying to suppress the Copernican theory.
It was rather a good put down, IMO.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Thanks - there's a fine line there and it was a bit opaque as to which side your OP was on.
"Martin is too opaque" is a personal attack, and should be in Hell.
"The hosts/admins should tell Martin to be less opaque" is Ships business, and fine here.
I think everyone who wishes to contribute to this thread should bear that distinction in mind (actually, that's generally true of all Styx threads relating to particular individuals).
-------------------------
Martin has always been less than clear at times, and there have been times when within that obscurity there appears to have been a personal attack. He has also always apologised when his words have been read as a personal attack. Since his last warning he has been generally more lucid.
Martin has also been told on several occasions that if the hosts can't easily understand what he has said (and, decoding messages is not part of the hostly job description) and it looks like a personal attack then it will be treated as a personal attack - and, therefore, Martin should take more care so as to be clearly not making a personal attack (even if the rest of the content of his post is obscure - though we'd prefer clarity in posts generally).
As for the specific judgement in question, the Purgatory host has issued a fairly general warning to cool things down a bit. Clearly if that is not heeded then further action may be required.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I said most of what I have to say to Martin about opaqueness here.
As far as I'm concerned, opaqueness is not necessarily a crime (unless it starts entering the jerkdom category), but if it turns out to conceal a commandment breach, it is an exacerbating circumstance. Martin, and any other obscure posters, proceed at their own risk in this respect.
Apart from that, posters are entitled to a) ask for clarification b) if that doesn't work, call the obscurantist to Hell.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nothing really to add to my Host post. I agree with Callan's observations about opaqueness.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
