Questions And Nit Picking Rant


cuchulain
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I notice lately that a lot of people, rather than answer a direct question, would prefer to nit pick about how the question was asked. It doesn't seem overly complicated to me, but maybe I am missing something? I would hazard to say that everyone I have communicated with on this forum seems intelligent, in my opinion; Intelligent enough to deduce from what is written what the actual question might be, yes? So if I ask a question hypothetically, why is it that it seems to be the phrasing or wording of the question that gets the rebuttal, instead of the actual point of the question? Sure, maybe I make a spelling mistake, or use a term that someone else might find objectionable, but which everyone can clearly see the meaning. Isn't it kind of derailing the topic to go off on a tangent about the spelling/grammar/political correctness of a question? I guess the obvious question in mind is the topic about bashing, and why Mererdog doesn't seem to want to answer the actual question posed. I am certain, or rather I should say it is my opinion, that Mererdog is smart enough to understand the question, despite my phrasing, yet that is what he focuses on. It isn't just that topic either, but others and other people who for whatever reason read a question, understand it, and instead of answering decide to nit pick. What is served? Why not answer the question at hand, instead of derailing? Seems to me easy enough to post a separate topic about the nit picked item, instead of tearing apart the thread that it is in, like I did here, yes?

Edited by cuchulain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians often sway off topic to avoid answering a question. This is done by questioning the question. I believe when a person doesn't have a counterpoint or their argument falls apart, they resort to similar tactics to avoid answering a question head-on. I often use a bible verse to answer a question or render support to what I'm saying. The response is inevitably an attack on the bible. The purpose is to change the subject and put the other person on the defensive. I'd rather they just say; 'Your right, the bible does say that, but I don't believe the bible, so I disagree'. That would be a respectable response and not an effort to dodge the question. My conclusions are generally backed by the bible, so I certainly understand why a nonbeliever would question my source,

But I do agree with your point about nitpicking over how something is phrased, or even a single word.. i.e; Obese and Fat pretty much relay the same message to me, it just means a corpulent creature, or to be blunt, a tub of lard :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nail on the head, friend. It does seem to me that the only logical explanation for dodging the question is that the person simply doesn't have an adequate counterpoint. Impugn the source, and the persons point must invariably fall apart eh? I too prefer the straightforward rebuttal, yet often find it lacking. Sometimes I even offer points that are lacking in that same respect, something I intend to watch for in the future debates. In another forum, I had someone try to persuade others about the validity of an argument I was making because I spelled principal for school, principle instead. They seriously thought that the spelling mistake negated the whole argument. Ah well, when lacking, attack the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Questions and statements are usually presented within a framework of terminology designed to prevent reasonable dissent. The framework is presented as undeniable. Often it is required to bring into question the framework itself in order to reasonably address the presented question. As with, "Why did it take you so long to stop beating your wife?" Followed with, "I can understand your denial but that still does not address why?"

Take the word fat. Dan just rattled off several variations, but the meaning of all of them was that fat is bad. Someone's weight can be determined by a scale, their girth can be determined by a tape measure. But the value of being fat can be determined by anyone (diverse individuality) or no one, but not by everyone (universal agreement). Values are not objective, but are often presented as if they are, or as a veiled ad hominem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, did I answer the question, and instead of addressing my answer, you nit picked how I answered, going so far as to accuse me of not actually answering? That was how it looked from my end.

As far as starting new topics versus derailing old ones, topic-hijacking is traditional here. The remedy of choice is to go back to the original topic when you want to as if it was never interupted. Sometimes a random necromancer will stumble in and shame us all by successfully doing it to a topic killed off years earlier... As a tip of the trade, keep in mind that if you mention the source of the interruption in an attempt to segue back onto topic, you are most likely going to prompt continued interruption...

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can certainly understand trying to examine the framework of the question, I feel personally like a person can reasonably read a question and understand its intent. Perhaps what I am lacking is that people view it with different intent, and so answer in a manner I find unsatisfactory. I can certainly agree with that, and apologize for any affront this might cause. If I understand you correctly, Mererdog, you are suggesting that in the future, if a topic is starting to go sideways that I would prefer to keep straight on, to ignore the post and hope it goes away? That is how it seems, anyway, let me know if I got that one wrong, as I might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past I have referred back to the original topic because I have been a sporadic poster and have come late to the discussion. Other times I do as mentioned above and refer back to the original topic to avoid "choosing sides" when there appears to be a heated debate on a side issue. I prefer to let the individuals involved work it out for themselves. In the past I have participated in interesting and enjoyable conversations with both Pete and Dan. My views are much closer to Pete's than Dan's, but I like both of them. Sometimes discussions become heated, and I prefer not to stoke the flames unnecessarily. (By this I do not mean to imply that others who decide to weigh in on the side issue are fueling the fire if they feel they have a relevant comment on the matter.)

Edited by Belyn Mawr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly, Mererdog, you are suggesting that in the future, if a topic is starting to go sideways that I would prefer to keep straight on, to ignore the post and hope it goes away? That is how it seems, anyway, let me know if I got that one wrong, as I might have.

What I am suggesting is that you accept that others will communicate in ways that you do not like, and that you find ways to maximize your enjoyment of the forum when it happens. Because it is going to happen. Over and over again. Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I have strayed a topic off to a mentioned tangent in thread, but usually due to an inquisitive mind, and I'll steer back or simply withhold any further distractions unless something else comes up that I wish clarity on. But isn't that kind of part of what the forum is for, to explore and share knowledge and opinions?

It would be best to continue a topic if one wishes, while acknowledging somehow that there had been posts off topic. I wouldn't consider it ignoring if one simply continues with original intent of thread, though, considering one has to read through everything to understand any quoted references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also guilty of starting or engaging in side topics, but I think that is human nature. People are not always trying to derail the original topic by doing so. Sometimes people have stopped posting on the original topic, and two members find they are basically having an informal conversation with each other that is not really in need of a completely new thread. I also don't feel slighted when someone returns to the original topic :).

Edited by Belyn Mawr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stray off topic sometimes myself, I don't know why I find it so annoying in others when I have the habit too. I guess it's hypocritical, but now that I have identified the issue, I can work on that. Much good advice given on everyone's part, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stray off topic sometimes myself, I don't know why I find it so annoying in others when I have the habit too. I guess it's hypocritical, but now that I have identified the issue, I can work on that. Much good advice given on everyone's part, thanks.

Not a problem that I can see. As Belyn said, it's just human nature. So, Surprise! You're human! :clap2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I notice lately that a lot of people, rather than answer a direct question, would prefer to nit pick about how the question was asked. It doesn't seem overly complicated to me, but maybe I am missing something? I would hazard to say that everyone I have communicated with on this forum seems intelligent, in my opinion; Intelligent enough to deduce from what is written what the actual question might be, yes? So if I ask a question hypothetically, why is it that it seems to be the phrasing or wording of the question that gets the rebuttal, instead of the actual point of the question? Sure, maybe I make a spelling mistake, or use a term that someone else might find objectionable, but which everyone can clearly see the meaning. Isn't it kind of derailing the topic to go off on a tangent about the spelling/grammar/political correctness of a question? I guess the obvious question in mind is the topic about bashing, and why Mererdog doesn't seem to want to answer the actual question posed. I am certain, or rather I should say it is my opinion, that Mererdog is smart enough to understand the question, despite my phrasing, yet that is what he focuses on. It isn't just that topic either, but others and other people who for whatever reason read a question, understand it, and instead of answering decide to nit pick. What is served? Why not answer the question at hand, instead of derailing? Seems to me easy enough to post a separate topic about the nit picked item, instead of tearing apart the thread that it is in, like I did here, yes?

Let he who is without syntax or spelling error... cast the first word processor!

Blessings Be,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Amulet locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share