Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

July 21st, 2006

Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 27th, 2006 at 00:41 | #1

    If you do have such evidence, please either produce or link to it, such evidence or argument to be in a form that a person who is not an academic, can understand and / or follow.

    Andrew,

    Do you not yet know how many angles can fit on the head of a pin?

    Regards,
    Terje.

  2. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 27th, 2006 at 00:55 | #2

    That should be “angels” not “angles”.

  3. Ernestine Gross
    July 27th, 2006 at 16:31 | #3

    Terje says:

    Quote: “I was working on an assumption that was wrong”

    Yes. Only one?

    Quote: “Rather than provide the usual easter egg hunt of clues you cut to the chase and pointed out the exact nature of the error. I regard that as a huge improvement in communication style. Issue resolved in one step instead of 50. ”

    Thanks for your advice but I wouldn’t pay a dime for it:

    Your ‘communications’ writing style does not allow the reader to distinguish between your assumptions and facts regarding personal information.

    You want me to correct your false assumptions about matters relating to my person.

    Superficially this is a clever idea because, if I were to do as you want me to, I would reveal personal information.

    Tough luck, Terje, I won’t play this game.

    It is you who is responsible for your writing. Any misinformation, confusion or misunderstanding generated by your message is your responsibility, not mine.

    So far, you have extracted exactly no private information from me. As I said, the information about my gender was already public. I chose when to make it public.

    You may wish to explain to all of us why the following web-sites pop up when one right-clicks your name “Terje (say Tay-a)� on your post dated 21 June 2006, 11:48 pm, which contains your missive in question.

    http://auriumexchange.com/forum/index.php, which changes to http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6240/turkbayragihackedbybatuhanturkac0.jpg

    I have written to John Quiggin about the hidden link on your name and I have asked other persons to check on the hidden link.

  4. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 27th, 2006 at 17:16 | #4

    I have written to John Quiggin about the hidden link on your name and I have asked other persons to check on the hidden link.

    I am not really sure why, however knock yourself out.

    John Quiggin provides the fascility to have a link. It is the field called “website” that is below your name and email address when you add a comment. There is a link associated with my name but there is no mystery about it. You will find that my later posts no longer link to the site in question. The site has recently come under attack. That is why I recently stopped linking to it. Although on some PCs that I use the details were in the cache and this may have caused me to accidently continue linking even after I decided to stop.

    Quote: “I was working on an assumption that was wrong�

    Yes. Only one?

    I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes. No doubt I will in time discover other assumptions that I hold about the world that are wrong. In one way I actually find such events very rewarding. It is called learning. I have heard it said that people who make mistakes learn more than those that never make mistakes.

    You want me to correct your false assumptions about matters relating to my person.

    Only if they concern you. My point is merely that there are efficient ways to correct somebodies false assumption and an inefficient ways. For some reasons (perhaps habit or mirth) you don’t seem very accustomed to using efficient ways. At least not in my experience.

    Superficially this is a clever idea because, if I were to do as you want me to, I would reveal personal information.

    Now you are making an assumption. You are assuming that I am after your personal information. That seems somewhat paranoid. Your the one that follows peoples “hidden links”. If you wish to conceal things about yourself I have no problem respecting that. Although obviously some things (eg your opinion, insight etc) are going to be sought if we are engaged in dialogue.

  5. July 27th, 2006 at 17:34 | #5

    Ernestine Gross, I can vouch for Terje’s website being hacked. He seems to be another victim of Batuhan-Türk, a serial hacker who mainly targets message boards, especially those ones powered by phpBB. A simple google of the term ‘Batuhan-Türk’ will reveal a plethora of other boards that have been similarly hacked.

  6. Ernestine Gross
    July 27th, 2006 at 19:35 | #6

    alpaca, are you the hacker?

  7. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 28th, 2006 at 00:41 | #7

    Ah!!! I notice that Alpaca has a “hidden link”. Very tricky. Maybe Alpaca has personal details also. Very suspicious. We better report it to JQ pronto.

  8. Ernestine Gross
    July 28th, 2006 at 01:35 | #8

    Terje,
    Subject: Efficient communication. Reply to your post of 27 July 5:16 pm.

    1. I did not ask whether you are ‘really sure’ why I wrote to John Quiggin and I did not ask for your advice on possible consequences.

    2. I understand you acknowledge that your post on JQ’s blog was hacked via your outside link, you knew you had been ‘attacked’ but you have an inefficient IT protocol to prevent ‘accidentally’ linking to your contaminated site, and your verbal communication protocol does not include the requirement of informing JQ and the commentators about your inefficient IT protocol. Is there anything I have misunderstood?

    3. I put to you, there are more efficient verbal communication protocols available than your preferred one. Moreover, under the public education system I know, these relatively more efficient verbal communication protocols are taught from primary school on with increasing levels of sophistication.
    A) One relatively more efficient verbal communication protocol is commonly known as grammatical writing.
    To illustrate its power and efficiency, consider the following 3 sentences:
    i. You want me to correct your false assumptions about matters relating to my person.
    ii. Do you want me to correct your false assumptions about matters relating to my person?
    iii. Only if they concern you.
    Sentence i is a descriptive statement.
    Sentence ii is a question.
    Sentence iii is a conditional statement.

    Sentence iii is a reply to sentence ii (although without clear information content). Sentence iii is not a reply to sentence i.

    I wrote sentence i. You subsequently wrote sentence iii.

    Your reply makes no sense.

    Without making any assumption about your motivation, I observe that you have substituted a question for my statement and then you replied to your question. I conclude that you are talking to yourself and I have nothing to do with the outcome of your conversation.

    B) “Superficially this is a clever idea because, if I were to do as you want me to, I would reveal personal information.
    Now you are making an assumption.�

    No, Terje, it is not me who is making an assumption, it is you who is making an assumption about me making an assumption. If I am making an assumption I say so, unless I make an error. If you suspect that I made an error (most people make errors although at different rates), there is this wonderful communication tool, called a question.

    C) “You are assuming that I am after your personal information.�
    No Terje, I made no assumption about your motivation. I wrote a statement which makes explicit what happens if someone would follow your advice on ‘verbal communication protocols’.

    D) “Your the one that follows peoples “hidden links�.

    No Terje, you are making an unsubstantiated assertion which excludes the possibility of accidental discovery. The verbal communication protocol, called English grammar, is much more efficient than your method because it allows for you to ask a question. The relevant question is: How did you discover this hidden link? I would immediately answer such a clear question. But you did not ask.

    E) “If you wish to conceal things about yourself I have no problem respecting that.�

    Terje, your verbal communication protocol is so inefficient that my message to you has been lost and replaced by something that makes no sense at all in relation to my post. So here is my message to you again:

    It is you (Terje) who is responsible for your writing. Any misinformation, confusion or misunderstanding generated by your message is your responsibility, not mine.

    Terje, I’ve come to the conclusion that your preferred verbal communication protocol is extremely inefficient.

    I am disappointed about the inefficiency of your own IT protocol and about your nonchalance regarding exposing the JQ blog site to hackers via your site. I understand you have expertise in IT.

  9. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 28th, 2006 at 10:27 | #9

    I am disappointed about the inefficiency of your own IT protocol and about your nonchalance regarding exposing the JQ blog site to hackers via your site.

    I suggest to you that raising this concern about my inefficiency with IT protocol is an aggressive/defensive response to my criticism of your communication style. This is very human. It is an interesting point you raise but I think I will address some of your other points first and maybe return to this issue later.

    Sentence i is a descriptive statement.
    Sentence ii is a question.
    Sentence iii is a conditional statement.

    I did not substitute a question for sentence (i). Clearly sentence (i) is a statement. It is a statement that I regard as being incorrect. Sentence (iii) is a qualifying statement that improves the accuracy (in my view) of sentence (i). As such I don’t see any grammatical problem.

    For example person-A might offer a statement such as “Eggs are green”. And person-B may respond “Only when they are bad”. Person-B is not incorrectly interpreting the first statement as a question but rather is offering a qualifying statement.

    There is a stuctural difference between formal english, such as one may use in an essay or report, and conversational english. In my experience it is the latter form that people adopt in the comment section of blogs and in web forums.

    I think you are right to infer that a question is superior to an assumption. However dialogue is always going to include assumptions. When somebody appears to have made an assumption that prejudices their understanding of your statements then it is efficient to point out the apparent assumption. Efficient in the sence that it avoids the subsequent accumulation of communication errors.

    I accept that it is not your responsibility what other people think. However if you wish to communicate effectively with other people then you need to care about the thoughts that get created in their mind in response to your utterances. The skill involved is called empathy. The communication channel between one mind and another is often a noisey one. That noise has many sources but includes the personal baggage carried by the receipient of your message. You are not responsible for the existance of that personal baggage however if it is your aim to communicate effectively with them then you need to check for understanding and correct misunderstanding. The sooner the better.

    You make a similar point yourself when you say:-

    Any misinformation, confusion or misunderstanding generated by your message is your responsibility, not mine.

    This obviously cuts both ways. If people get confused by your utterances then you have some responsibility even if your grammar was perfect. I would qualify it further by saying that communication is a collaberative effort.

    In interviewing people who have english as a second language I sometimes encounter people who are terrific natural communicators. They often have terrible grammar but can communicate well in spite of it. I also meet people who have great grammar but are lousy communicators. Grammar is a subset of communication however it is far from being all encompassing.

    I think you are an excellant writer and your grammar is probably superior to most people. In terms of communication I think you have yet to achieve your full potential. However given how bright you obviously are (PhD and all) I think that with some concerted effort you will improve over time.

  10. July 28th, 2006 at 11:27 | #10

    Terje,
    It is incredible how some people can be supremely educated, yet incapable of communicating meaning.
    .
    Ernestine,
    The “hidden link” is not even hidden. It is the same colour as the other links on this site, as it is in mine. Terje has not “exposed” PrQ’s site to hacking. The fact that the site that Terje links to has been hacked means no more, nor any less, then the site he links to has been hacked.
    From what you have said, I understand you have little expertise in IT – which makes it three areas identified in which you have little expertise.
    Keep going – we will identify others.

  11. Terje
    July 28th, 2006 at 12:28 | #11

    Andrew,

    It should be of little surprise that people are not proficient at everything. I think that education and training are the only remedies on offer so I would caution against tarnishing the notion of being an educated person. I offer criticism of Ernestine from a position of frustration, not from one of perfection. If my preaching to her falls on deaf ears then ultimately I have also demonstrated short commings in the communication endeavour. Hopefully we are all still learning.

  12. July 28th, 2006 at 13:48 | #12

    Terje,
    I have been having this type of problem with Ernestine for a little while. I am not optimistic that a solution is in the immediate future.
    I also hope we are all learning. My discussion with James on the doomsayers thread is teaching me that the “deep greens” here have even less of an idea about how they are going to get to their idea of sustainability than I thought.

  13. July 28th, 2006 at 15:56 | #13

    Ernestine Gross accusation:

    alpaca, are you the hacker?

    No, I’m not. Are you?

  14. Terje (say TAY-A)
    July 28th, 2006 at 15:59 | #14

    Technically it was a question not an accusation.

  15. sdfc
    July 28th, 2006 at 23:08 | #15

    Its a boreathon.

  16. Terje
    August 1st, 2006 at 08:17 | #16

    I recall being told once that only boring people get bored.

Comment pages
1 2 3095
Comments are closed.