russ_watters said:
Please note the inherrent selection bias on an internet forum: people only enter discussions about topics they care about which tends to mean you only see their more passionate/hardened opinions. Also, being opinionated or passionate about a subject doesn't necessarily relate to how well-thought out a position is. My biggest complaint about this forum is that IMO the intelligence level of the discussion is often pretty low and I try hard to make my arguments thoughtful even if they are passionate. I'm not sure what you think you saw from me, but you've only been here 6 months and it seemed to me like you formed a pretty negative opinion about me pretty quickly - not a very big sample size, I'd say.
And this conversation we're having right now isn't really about a political opinion, it is about me!
True...
Look Russ, you present yourself in a very particular way, which is often more oppositional than purely constructive. You're right; I formed a poor opinion of you, although not of your intelligence or competence. The very fact that I felt comfortable enough to mention you in the context I did, while unflattering, is an indicator that my view of you has changed; you are not a monolith.
There is the bias you describe, and the passion, but from personal experience; you show a level of what may be called commitment, or dogged determination to make your case. Sometimes that goes beyond simple determination into the realm of something a little more in the vein of a rant. In particular, you and Ivan clearly do not get along, like each either, respect each other, and barely tolerate each other. That's the impression I've gotten in my time here, and even if it's true, as a mentor when you get passionate or angry... it has more UMPH for the average user than say, a rant of mine.
If you want to best serve the positions you represent, especially given that you are so often part of the sample size: "Russ, Mhelsp(sp?), and Al," then it may be a better approach to be both intellectually rigorous, and genuinely engaged in something other than dismissing an idea.
I understand that analysis of inherently emotional issues requires a measure of distance, but there's a balance to be struck between constantly espousing an ideology, and showing up to set facts straight. You do both, but you're not in the same fair position as the rest of us; you actually get judged more harshly because you have a measure of authority! Unfair, but true.
As I said, my view of you has evolved from: "he's a flak," to the point where I think you're telling me the absolute truth about your motivations; I just wish that the tone in general my own included, had been more about communication than bludgeoning.
I do apologize for those assumptions I've made about you, based on what you've accurately pointed out is a non-sample. You're also right, that this is personally directed, but when two of the most active (especially in GD, P&WA, and S&D) mentors are practically locked in a constant battle. I know that it takes 2 to tango, but... I've been able to PM Ivan without thinking he'd just laugh in my face and re-state his personal position. It took time to realize that you present yourself in a manner that is in many ways, unrelated to how you're willing to step back and talk.
Part of that is me, but part of it is just that this ongoing fight is bad for any forum, but it's almost tragic given the sheer volume of text you and Ivan exchange without either shifting a mm. It's hard to see this as something other than a personal fight that simply had its roots in ideology.
I'm usually just deflecting fire.
