On 25/02/2014 21:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/25/2014 12:12 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/25/2014 11:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
text construction is that of an instruction.
Instruction? Huh? That characterization warrants careful
explanation. Please provide it.
The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need. It implied that
implementing the change would remedy the need.
What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example,
explanation?
There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note
making the suggestion. Everything focusing on background and presence
or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response. Hence, ad
hominem.
d/
Dave
First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to
this discussion.
If I knew what you considered harassing and how it constitutes
harassing, I'd be able to consider the request. Given the import of a
word like harassing, it's surprising it would be used without any
explanation. So, sitting as a standalone assertion, without
explanation, it's difficult to see how your 'request' is constructive.
Dave
In response to :
> Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
> text construction is that of an instruction.
You almost immediately responded with:
"Instruction? Huh? That characterization warrants careful explanation.
Please provide it.
"The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need. It implied that
implementing the change would remedy the need.
"What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example,
explanation? "
I was reacting to this immediate response.
I apologize for any offense this may have caused.
Stewart