Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is completely meaningless in the context of LearnMe's comment. It in no way invalidates the below:
What, I believe, LearnMe was saying is that if you had personal story relevant to, say, climate change, that was backed up with statistics and scientific data, it would go a long way in communicating the message and driving the point home.
If however, your personal story is that praying is a much better prophylactic than vaccine, then, as LearnMe, stated, then it would say nothing of the truth of the matter and can in fact lead to negative results.
I was reacting to this statement: "Would be helpful if you provided more than just your opinion based on more than just your say so, but our personal experiences and anecdotes really don't reveal the broader truth of these matters"
I was reacting to this statement: "Would be helpful if you provided more than just your opinion based on more than just your say so, but our personal experiences and anecdotes really don't reveal the broader truth of these matters"
Reacting or overreacting? Because both statements are perfectly well stated and I don't see much argument against them. Could it be that you misread or felt that validity of your own personal experiences was being challenged? I often catch myself reacting without considering what really lit my fuse. It takes deliberate effort not to and I fail more often than I succeed but occasionally it does yield some surprising results.
Reacting or overreacting? Because both statements are perfectly well stated and I don't see much argument against them. Could it be that you misread or felt that validity of your own personal experiences was being challenged? I often catch myself reacting without considering what really lit my fuse. It takes deliberate effort not to and I fail more often than I succeed but occasionally it does yield some surprising results.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was required to react to someone's posting in exactly the way you do.
Being a Buddhist doesn't mean one is passive or dispassionate.
I'm all for impassioned defense of values. I even think there is a time and a place for being an arse. I just don't quite see how you side step the first straight to the latter.
Phet. is a straight talker. The secret it to not take his posts personally as one would expect him not to do unto their own posts.
No, Trans, I disagree. Your're a straight talker. You most certainly don't mince your words when you are making a point. You are what I consider an impassioned debater, one I don't always agree with but at least you are not openly bitter and hostile and don't hide behind your snide remarks or run away after accusing people of questionable conduct (different thread). phetaroi, however, for all his not wanting to be 'passive' is just petty. Of course, it's only an observation. I may be wrong and completely misjudging him. For all I know, whenever him and I cross paths on threads, he might be having a bad day. It's just, I'm yet to meet this impassioned straight talker capable of holding a conversation without resorting to hostilities.
No, Trans, I disagree. Your're a straight talker. You most certainly don't mince your words when you are making a point. You are what I consider an impassioned debater, one I don't always agree with but at least you are not openly bitter and hostile and don't hide behind your snide remarks or run away after accusing people of questionable conduct (different thread). phetaroi, however, for all his not wanting to be 'passive' is just petty. Of course, it's only an observation. I may be wrong and completely misjudging him. For all I know, whenever him and I cross paths on threads, he might be having a bad day. It's just, I'm yet to meet this impassioned straight talker capable of holding a conversation without resorting to hostilities.
Phet says so plainly if he disagrees with me. So does Harry Diogenes. And I say plainly if I disagree with them. It isn't personal and not taken as such (or as far as i can recall). If we can do it, I should think others can, as well.
"and don't hide behind your snide remarks" It's a Brit thing, like Jeremy Clarkson. We stand beside our snide remarks and point to them with a beam of pride..
"and don't hide behind your snide remarks" It's a Brit thing, like Jeremy Clarkson. We stand beside our snide remarks and point to them with a beam of pride..
Ah, a world according to JC... How hard can it be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because both statements are perfectly well stated and I don't see much argument against them. Could it be that you misread or felt that validity of your own personal experiences was being challenged? I often catch myself reacting without considering what really lit my fuse. It takes deliberate effort not to and I fail more often than I succeed but occasionally it does yield some surprising results.
