The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Avebury Forum Start a topic | Search
Avebury
Re: Alexander Keiller's Avebury
761 messages
Select a forum:
Mustard wrote:
bladup wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Mustard wrote:


Does the below invalidate the above ?

Yes.

Of course it doesn't . Two entirely different categories .One is an experiment the other a form of behaviour .

You would think that. That's the "passive" part of "passive aggressive".




You would think that and be right . A form of behaviour particularly one that has no relation to the experiment cannot refute or invalidate the results of an experiment .

And the results on the experiment can not be demonstrated to be valid to the discussion, just by your having posted a link. Far more likely, in fact, that it's simply passive-aggressive behaviour, designed to disparage the views of others without bothering with actual discussion or engagement. It's not big or clever - it's just rude, and a little bit sad.


That's an entirely different point and not what you originally claimed .

If you had responded with the latest comment to the original comment it would have made more sense .
Similarly posting of second link was a fine example of it's content .


I think it's exactly the same point, actually.

Your second point is ridiculous, because the implication of that point would be that it's impossible to draw attention to passive-aggressive behaviour without being passive-aggressive in turn. Which is, of course, classic projection and displacement - witnessed often in the school yard as "Oh no I'm not. You are".

How about actually contributing something useful to the discussion rather than just posting a link insinuating offence? As far as I can see, that link has been your sole contribution to this massive thread thus far.


It was my sole contribution . It actually made a point , some may have seen it as valid others even a bit of light relief . The majority ignored it .I had no intention of adding anything else .
You made a category mistake by suggesting that a form of behaviour invalidates experimental results when what you should have suggested was that the original post was a form of that behaviour ,which would have been arguable but at least not wrong .
I had to point out that category mistake .
Instead of accepting that you continue to divert the thread .

You made the mistake of mistaking a facetious single-word reply for an actual argument. I, in turn, made the mistake of failing to appreciate just how seriously you take yourself. I do find it deliciously ironic that you consider your own behaviour as perfectly acceptable, while portraying any reaction to that behaviours as "derailing the thread". If you wish to take the moral high ground, you always have the option of not replying, then the thread will be guaranteed to remain on the rails. I am not responsible for your pathological need to respond to my posts ;)


Apologies for further diversion VBB , Moss et al but here's the original post that led to this nonsense . I believe valid slightly funny and possibly cheeky .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

The mistake you made was using the single word to agree to a comment therefore clarifying your category mistake . Rather than acceopt that you have conntinued to deny it .

Note that it was your response and subsequent mistake that led to this . If you respond to this will that not be due to a pathological need ?


I'm quite comfortable with my pathological need. It was you who was apparently worried about derailing the thread ;)

I didn't make a "category mistake", and the fact that you continue to press this point in a patronising fashion illustrates your belligerence. I continue to deny it, because it isn't true.

You original post wasn't "funny" - it was rude and inflammatory, given that you clearly intended to infer that this experiment was applicable to those holding a particular view in this discussion.


Sadly this all revolves around your category mistake .
Where you agreed that a behaviour invalidates an experiment which is simply not true .You didn't even attempt to refute it
It is not beligerence to support that view when it is continually opposed .

I said that the original post was "slightly funny " and accept that not everyone would find it so . I don't believe that it was rude or inflammatory certainly nothing like as rude or inflammatory as some of the comments seen here even in on this particular section e.g. pathological , beligerent .

This revolves around a "category mistake" (a strange fixation on technical terminology, I must say) only in your mind. No "category mistake" has been made, however much you choose to insist that that is the case. It is certainly belligerent, rude and inflammatory to continue to make that assertion when you've been told repeatedly that you've failed to understand the facetiousness of the post around which your misconception revolves.

If your original post wasn't "rude or inflammatory", would you care to explain what inference people were meant to draw in relation to the on-going discussion?


This diversion is due to your failure to accept what was clear in the first five posts .You agreed to the comment that a behaviour invalidates an experiment .Note not even the behaviour of anyone involved in the experiment simply a particular behaviour . This is clearly not true and every post since my first has been based on showing that to be the case . Why don't you simply accept that or refute it . ?
There was no mention of facetiousness until today , many posts into the "discussion" why didn't you say that at the time ?


This diversion is due to the fact that you seem to be fixated upon a one-word post, which I've explained to you a few times was facetious. As soon as it became apparent to me that your fixation on that post and misunderstanding of its nature was the source of the problem, I pointed it out to you.

I do not feel the need to either refute or accept your assertion regarding your original link, because I consider that link irrelevant and inflammatory - hence the facetious one-word response to the question in the first instance. The question itself was an attempt to set up a straw-man argument, since the original link had no actual bearing on the views held by anyone in this discussion. The original link was no more relevant to this discussion that a link to an experiment regarding the ripening of bananas.


If you had said the the "yes" was facetious after a few posts it wouldn't have got caused this diversion .
But you didn't , and all the resulting verbiage has been about avoiding what was pointed out within five posts .
The link did have some relevance and was even noted as such .You didn't mention the irrelevance earlier either .

I just told you - I pointed out that it was facetious as soon as I realised that your misunderstanding was causing an issue. I couldn't very well point it out before I realised it was necessary to point it out, could I?

I thought my view that the link was irrelevant was quite clearly illustrated by my initial response. If you still feel it's relevant, I ask you again.... would you care to explain what inference people were meant to draw in relation to the on-going discussion?


Well that was a very quick kiss and make up!!!
He won't drop it, and I have a pathological need to reply ;)


Oh i know how that feels [as does he].


Reply | with quote
bladup
Posted by bladup
23rd January 2013ce
13:38

In reply to:

Re: Alexander Keiller's Avebury (Mustard)

Messages in this topic: