Kirby wrote:RobertJasiek wrote:If you do not want to express order, then do not use numbers to order your basics.
The problem is not using numbers. The problem is assuming that he was ordering by a declared importance, and then criticizing it based on your assumption.
Well, it’s not that numbering it—and typing this in our traditional reading order: from top to bottom—would
not propose where to begin and where to proceed, no?
But I actually
agree and empathize with what I
believe you mean … and I totally agree with this:
[..]
I enjoyed reading daal's post, and it would be a shame if he were turned off from making good posts in the future because of assumption-based criticism.
Yet I “liked” both daal’s and Robert’s posts. Why? Because I
believe both were written with best intentions, i.e. willing to help others to become better Go players, and both posts contained (what I believe to be) good (=basic
) information, and I think I can see where Robert’s criticism points to (hint: not his books {you may disagree with me here, Robert
};
and yes, I recommend his book “First Fundamentals”), and please note that his criticism is
ad rem, not
ad hominem.
Robert, I really really sympathize with you, but not always with the
way you state things. Your
content is something I
always consider worth thinking about and discussing, but I can also understand how people can be p!ssed of by your
form, or call it
style of discussion or whatever.
To be honest—and please forgive me for talking this way here, out in the open, but I want this my opinion to be also read and understood by others here, since it always has ended up the same way before—I believe you’re a brillant thinker, extremely intelligent and gifted, AND I believe you may have a deficit in empathy, in … uhm … the art of social interaction. Between humans, that is; I assume that your cat loves you, if you have one.
There’s a thing called “
rapport” in NLP and modern psychotherapy. This is, sort of, reassuring the counterpart that we are in common grounds, in peace,
that we won’t eat them. You have sure heard the phrase “I’m OK, You’re OK” (actually the title of an IMHO very good psycho
book by Thomas A. Harris, 1967, the foundation of
Transactional Analysis). Once we have assured our counterpart that we respect them and don’t outright consider their thoughts to be bullsh!t, etc., etc., they will be much more open to our ideas.
Now, I also believe
you may not be aware how many of your comments in this forum could be perceived as vitriolic, condescending, big-mouthed (etc., etc.)
Under normal circumstances I’d try to talk to you about such things in private, but on L19 there are no “normal circumstances”
I mean: There is a large conflict already, and in my perception both “sides” show lack of empathy and readiness to view through the other’s eyes, if only for a moment. Therefore this is directed to both sides.
·•————————~————————•·<sigh> This planet could be such a fine place if
these we funny humans would learn to talk in positives instead of negatives and if
they we would learn to avoid whatever is ambiguous and could be understood in a negative way by our counterpart. I can tell you, this is enough to learn for a lifetime—I’ve been trying to become a human since, uhm, begin of the 70s, and I’m still struggling with the basics, fundamentals, and essentials (in no particular order
).
Peace, Tom
