Despite being caught out in the wrong, tries to put the blame on me.
>I guess to paraphrase Peter is to invite his ire.
To describe the mutation of "I think the Aeolians are socially disadvantaged because..." into "Aeolians are the most hated people..." as a paraphrase is the type of chicanery that David Irving indulged in.
I am annoyed because you willfully invented an extreme position, attributed it to me, and repeated it (despite my denial) without checking to see whether it was true.
>To misunderstand Peter appears to be easy
So twisting "socially disadvantaged" into "most hated" was easy for you? I'm hardly surprised...
>- at least I am far from the only person around here
>who gets into such arguments.
Which is true. Since I do try and write clearly, yet these irvinglesque paraphrases still continue, much (but not all) of the blame lies on the other side.
>I aoplogize for the "most hated" error which came up in an offline
>discussion of mine during the Immanent Mastery thread.
Despite the implication, I have never had a off-line discussion with Joerg about the Immanent Mastery.
>When writing from
>work I don't have the chance to reread Peter's statements.
Well that's too bad. You still should have checked after my first denial and not relied on the memory of some off-line bitchfest about how Evil and Cruel I am (Speaking of which, you can mention in your next mutual moan that I club baby seals for cheap thrills if it makes you feel any better).
>I do take offense at Peter's offhand desultory comments on my
>thought processes, but the digest isn't the place for discussing
>that.
The Truth is cruel.
> > As opposed to threatening to quit one's post as dragon pass expert
>This was a fit of exasperation after Peter would not even consider
>following my line of argument.
Hardly. I simply sent a writeup to Joerg for his comments and was looking forward to them. The threat to quit was in his _reply_ to that post.
>If Peter got the impression that I wanted
>to lever my campaign into the book or quit, well, that is his
>version.
The comment looked pretty clear to me.
>I wanted to get Peter to _consider_ other, published opinions,
>e.g. mine, and when that failed I got fed up.
The irony is that I did consider them and read what I had before writing it up. I even included some (but not others, not because I disagreed with them, but because of what Greg wrote). Joerg, however, was too far up himself to even notice.
>I decided that I would keep Glorantha as my hobby even though Peter
>ruins much of my fun discussing my ideas.
Makes a pleasant change from ruining "EVERYTHING".
>Nowadays, when I put forward
>my opinions on things Peter has mentioned his ideas, I put in a
>disclaimer "here Peter has a different opinion".
Which wouldn't be so bad, but Joerg somehow managed to attribute a opinion that only bore a passing semblance to what I actually said.
Powered by hypermail