Oh dear. I'm ill-mannered, let's see now, because I, a newbie (such impertinence) dared to suggest that the behaviour of the great KaVir in this thread has been less than admirable? (I must say, I do find him calling anyone ill-mannered after what he did to Samson a bit rich.)
I was certainly not trying to ruin any healthy debate. There was very little debate to ruin at that point.
I had made some points in my original post that I retracted on reflection since they only contributed to the pointlessness of this thread. But for the record, a precis:
Way back on page 11, KaVir had paraphrased everyone in the thread to that point, selectively, to his own ends, and in the process wounding my very own ego by ignoring the points I'd tried to make in my post waaaaaaay back on page 7, presumably because he found them inconvienient (I'll credit him with having the integrity to have bothered to read them in the first place).
No great loss in the grand scheme of things, but I agreed with Orion that paraphrasing people is a surefire way to rile those paraphrased, particularly when the paraphrasing ignores the meat of their argument.
But then, given that almost everything that KaVir has written here has been a slight to someone, my protests are just so much noise at this point. Person K (if not C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and L) did not just wake up one morning and decide "Person B - bad" out of the blue; she had the evidence shoved down her throat.
That aside, I'm intrigued and pleased to observe this thread scrabbling it's way back from the brink of the "flaming abyss of ####" towards some semblance of sanity. Rational debate may win the day yet, let's see...
K, making a mess of her popcorn
|