I don't think it is worth the effort. It is there if anyone is interested
You certainly volunteer to stir up trouble in multiple threads. So what's the difference? If you actually engaged in a friendly discussion, everyone might benefit.
No, a shorter post is not necessarily clearer. Elaborating on a point, assuming the other person has a different understanding than you, will be much clearer to all involved. Most of us here actually like to find both people we agree with (validation, someone to discuss similar philosophies with, etc.) and people we don't agree with (new information, identifying gaps in our approach, better understanding different views, etc.).I am not feeling unfriendly towards anyone. I think trouble generally comes from misunderstanding, of which there is a lot. Posts need to be short in such cases because longer posts lead to more misunderstanding. Even the most simple points are generally ignored or misunderstood, I think because of a desperate desire not to agree. That isn't something I can help really- others control their own perception
Actually, in terms of communication, it's precisely the fault of the one delivering the message if the receiver can't understand it.A reasoned argument in terms of probability has been presented in this thread and also in several other threads. It isn't my fault if you are incapable of perceiving the argument.
Except that people have already stated that it didn't make sense to them. Which means your communication was unsuccessful. The attitude displayed in this post is "I don't care if you understand or not." If that's true, I can't imagine why you'd bother to post.I can't be bothered going through it again. It isn't really important unless you are interested, in which case it is there
Except that people have already stated that it didn't make sense to them. Which means your communication was unsuccessful. The attitude displayed in this post is "I don't care if you understand or not." If that's true, I can't imagine why you'd bother to post.
Actually, in terms of communication, it's precisely the fault of the one delivering the message if the receiver can't understand it.
Oh, agreed, but there's a principle of communication involved. It's a point I make when teaching communication seminars. You can't control the other person, so if they don't understand, you first assume it's a problem with your transmission. Only after you've confirmed the transmission quality (in a forum, that means others aren't generally having trouble understanding), can you safely conclude the problem is on the receiving side.Not sure I agree with that 100%. Let's face it: there are some people out there who are dumber than a box of rocks. There is responsibility on both giving and receiving end when it comes to understanding.
Hence the problems you encounter here over and over again.
I have learned from typing pages and pages of explanation that it usually donesn't make any difference.
Nobody else gets to read that - this is a forum, and part of the value is the open discussion and ability to refer back to past discussions for clarification.
Beyond that, even when he has gone into lengthy descriptions, it's ephemeral. For the most part it end ups being platitudes and what amounts to something similar to talking to a pseudo-intellectual college student trying to sound knowledgeable about philosophy.
I quite agree with Guy here. I really don't think it would benefit anybody if he were to type out his views on VT yet again. Hearing it again isn't going to persuade me, and I doubt that it will reach many others either.
Honestly, It's like trying to engage in civil discussion with the street corner evangelists thumping their bibles and telling me that I'm on the road to perdition. I'm not an easy convert, and they certainly aren't interested in my outlook!