Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes, yes I can. If you hold an opinion that has no corroborating evidence its meaningless to anyone but you. For example I could say, 'I Robbie Carrobie am awesome', but if there was no testimony i.e no corroboration to my awesomeness (thankfully there is) it would have little meaning. However if there was testimony to my awesomeness (which there is) then the opinion is substantiated through the scientific method.
Can you substantiate that?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think "treat others as you wanted to be treated by them" ~ or words to that effect ~ is a better consensus to govern our interactions.
On a serious note, I would like to propose a long overdue truce with each of the intended recipients of this invitation. Please reply with a simply "Yes" if you've accepted this invitation or a "No" if you've decided to decline this invitation without disclosing the personal reasons for your decision. My thanks in advance to those of you who decide to become an online Friend. ~Bob
I also think people being forthright and honest is healthier than thinly disguised 'agreements' intended to curb people's candour or inconvenient opinions.
Furthermore, I think it's right and proper for people to stand up to hypocrites and passive aggressive bullies in a public forum, in the same way as some of you think it is right and proper to stand up to me for the reasons they feel they have and if they feel those reasons are justified.
You are behaving in pretty much the same way so far in 2016 as you did in 2015. Conditions that might be comparable to a "truce" will naturally occur when people no longer feel the need to stand up to you and call you out.
Originally posted by FMFCan you explain why I have never found GB to be in your words, 'passive aggressive', 'hypocritical', or 'dishonest'?
I think "treat others as you wanted to be treated by them" ~ or words to that effect ~ is a better consensus to govern our interactions.
I also think people being forthright and honest is healthier than thinly disguised 'agreements' intended to curb people's candour or inconvenient opinions.
Furthermore, I think it's right and proper for people to stand ...[text shortened]... e" will naturally occur when people no longer feel the need to stand up to you and call you out.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn my own words? In what context or in which post are you saying I used the word "dishonest"? In the post you were replying to, I said that it is an imperative for me to be forthright and honest, I didn't say he was "dishonest".
Can you explain why I have never found GB to be in your words, 'passive aggressive', 'hypocritical', or 'dishonest'?
Originally posted by FMFSo you cannot explain why I have not found GB to be in your words, 'passive aggressive', ' dishonest', or anything else that you have termed him. So evidently these are subjective values that you are expressing that have little meaning beyond what you yourself imbue them with. I see, how interesting.
No. I have explained why I do. It's not for me to explain what you say you don't. What a daft question.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWas the word "dishonest" in the post of mine you were replying to?
So you cannot explain why I have not found GB to be in your words, 'passive aggressive', ' dishonest', or anything else that you have termed him. So evidently these are subjective values that you are expressing that have little meaning beyond what you yourself imbue them with. I see, how interesting.
Originally posted by FMFYes your term 'thinly disguised' carries with it the insinuation of dishonesty by concealing something, like an intention. I thought it was obvious, apparently not obvious enough.
In my own words? In what context or in which post are you saying I used the word "dishonest"? In the post you were replying to, I said that it is an imperative for me to be forthright and honest, I didn't say he was "dishonest".
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou saying that you have not found his behaviour "passive aggressive" is a subjective comment on your part. If you really believe that opinions that people express have little meaning beyond what they themselves imbue them with, then the same must surely apply to all the opinions you express too.
So you cannot explain why I have not found GB to be in your words, 'passive aggressive', ' dishonest', or anything else that you have termed him. So evidently these are subjective values that you are expressing that have little meaning beyond what you yourself imbue them with. I see, how interesting.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Thinly disguised" is a figure of speech. It is not synonymous with "dishonesty". It's more like "disingenuousness". If I'd wanted to accuse him of "dishonesty" in the post you were replying to, I would have.
Yes your term 'thinly disguised' carries with it the insinuation of dishonesty by concealing something, like an intention. I thought it was obvious, apparently not obvious enough.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFNo I don't thin it does because I try where possible to have corroborating evidence for my opinions whereas as you seem content to express purely subjective values.
You saying that you have not found his behaviour "passive aggressive" is a subjective comment on your part. If you really believe that opinions that people express have little meaning beyond what they themselves imbue them with, then the same must surely apply to all the opinions you express too.