and into wrote:However, while I think Aule is really far off-base, I do not (necessarily) think he is acting obtuse with the intent to troll....
I got a report on this thread and yeah, it is a silly thread, but it is also in CYC, so, whatever, it can stay open.
Given that some of my assertions, denied outright as unbelievable, were confirmed by other posters during the discussion, I'd say even
attempting to divine intent to troll would be a waste of time, but I'm happy you came to that particular conclusion.
Lasty wrote:If you are actually trying to post earnestly, and I have a really hard time believing that at this point, please explain why you posted this passage explaining that you knew what you're saying is deliberately provocative and misleading:
Aule wrote:All right. So here's the finish. You ready?
The failure is in the term itself: scumming. It's a patently negative connotation that can be shown to be inconsistently determined and applied, and it is unnecessarily pejorative. The reason so much ire and angst has arisen as a result of my use in relation to wins has been solely because of the pejorative labeling.
It's pretty simple, mate. I don't think long and hard before I post (except when it really matters, like right this minute). I don't spend minutes and hours composing phrases and measuring them for effect (I'm spending several minutes right now). This ain't manifesto shit, here; it's a bar, no?
Did you know that if you edit a message when no one else has commented yet it doesn't record the change as edited? I can't tell you how many times I blew something out, went out of the room, and later came back to make a change that occurred long after the fact. Mostly minor, but sometimes quite large. (Sorry if this behavior has confused quick readers. Also, it's not happening with this one.) If one word could mark the mode my "contributions" here, it would be extemporaneity. I understand many will look at that and sneer, but I write the words that come to me in the thought; I don't go looking for them. Sorry also if this offends some, but I'm a writer and this is how I think.
The part you quoted, since you are asking for state of mind, went psychologically something like this: I posted a comment; hackles were raised; I defended my assertions; more hackles were raised; I became concerned; I countered rebuttals; others countered them also; more hackles were raised; I didn't really want so many hackles over something I
believe to be insignificant, so I tried to "wrap everything up nicely." so we could move on with more important things. Also, internally, I am motivated by honesty over correctness; exploration over fixity. This runs obliquely to normal psychologies; perhaps even perpendicular. So be it.
I think it is impossible to gauge the intent of a poster from the little bits of electronic aether gathered in any number of servers. The words are not lenses through which one can peer to find definition; they are at best little mirrors that can only reflect what happens in our own minds.
Abandon hope of finding a consistent, uniform mentality for me through anything I say or write. I am, if anything, a philosophical vagrant. You should, if you must label me, call me mad instead.
Is that okay?