@gary_c

Quote:

saimo, you've said I was trying to create smokescreens and diversions and so on,

For clearness' sake: I was speaking in general terms and I've got nothing personal against you (in the same way, this post can be interpreted in a general way; wherever I use "you" is only because, well, it's you that I'm replying to ); however, as I have openly stated exactly every time I thought it was the case, I do find that sometimes you (try to) divert the attention.

Quote:

but honestly I try to respond to your points as clearly as I can. Maybe I focus on something you say that is not the most important point in your opinion, and this strikes you as an attempt to go off on a tangent,

But, as shown by my posts, I don't just say: "Hey, you're divagating (because I say so)."; I always give an explanation of why I think it is so. And, BTW, until now, not a single time anybody ever could come up with something like a "Nope, you are wrong, in fact what I wrote is pertaining because of this and that" and prove me wrong - note that I don't absolutely want the discussions to degenerate in nitpicking fights: I'd just like them to be totally open, honest and stay on track as much as possible.

Quote:

but I don't try to do this intentionally.

I'm not really interested in knowing the spirit with which you reply, although it's undeniable that it's unpleasant to get the feeling that a reply is not "genuine" - and viceversa, of course

Quote:

What I try to do is respond in a clear and fairly brief way, because it seems your analyses get rather heavy with references to earlier posts and so on, spiraling backward instead of progressing forward.

I don't go backwards because I enjoy it (I don't find it funny at all, as explained already) or because that's the direction I consider correct: instead - excuse me if I repeat myself - it's only because of the necessity of keeping the discussion on track and thus enable it to proceed forward, rather than letting it take any branch encountered *before* the main path has been fully walked.
Moreover, I always give a motivation why I feel doing so is needed (and most of the times, or maybe all of them, it's because I sense a diversion). Your answers are clear, but often are not... answers : I mean, sometimes what you write does not reply to what I wrote, but rather pulls another issue in the discussion, leaving the real subject unanswered - that looks like an attempt at raising a smokescreen because of lack of arguments. I always try to be very clear about these situations and I do my best to explain/report the details in order to fully and honestly show my thoughts and, at the same time, put the interlocutor in the condition of having all the elements to "defend" himself.

Quote:

Anyway, I hope you will accept my word that I want to honestly respond to your points in a clear way. I really am trying to get clarifications and air these issues in an open way.

While these words sound genuine (and I'm happy about it), I can't deny that they quite clash with what I've seen in your posts, so I hope you can understand me if I say that accepting them straight away would be very hard (and maybe hypocrite) - I'm a man, not a machine . But surely I grant you the benefit of doubt, really hoping that in the next conversations we will have I'll find your intentions are just like you say.

Now, I wonder: why did you employ your time to write this meta-post (no offence intended: this is really a meta-discussion), instead of just taking my posts and showing me why, instead, you think the arguments you brought in did actually fit, thus enabling yourself to bring your POV on? (No, I don't want an answer... this is just a rhetorical question.)

I had promised I wouldn't comment on this issue, but it would have been unfair given that I had discussed it only with other persons. So, everybody, please excuse me for such a long OT post.

saimo

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC