SpoilerAs an apologia rather than an endorsement, I must explain to the uninitiated that this is the sort of report written in Washingtonese, a language with which I am more familiar than most. It is (in this case) intended as a “further reading” for things like amicus briefs—briefs that tend to be legal arguments by nature. Legal arguments in an adversarial system like we have in the U.S. are strongly centered around certain tactics, one of them being to avoid conceding any points whatsoever, thus making a search for any nuance a lost cause, and criticism thereof an opposing argument as a fait accompli. When people say “context is everything” or “the medium is the message”, this is exactly the sort of place where you have to keep this in mind; to the Washington outsider, it is easy to misunderstand such briefs as being in a different literary genre, like perhaps a shitty op-ed, but they are in fact a genre of their own.

(06-25-2013, 11:47 PM)SleepingOrange Wrote: »I'm not sure how you internally justify a post like that as helpful, or indeed anything but a quiet insult.

If one is going to dismiss a report while clearly having only looked at the abstract using insulting terms like “Overall, cite your sources, be less dishonest, d- see after class” and redtext (N.B. the report has two pages of citations), one does not deserve anything but my contempt because there is an apparent hypocriticism embedded in it. The fact that wheat gets only my disappointment is the quite opposite of an insult, even if my wording is (admittedly) blunt or inartful. My intention was to leave open the opportunity to reflect or explanation before I say my piece, because again, I have every intention of being back to say (or not say it), and plenty of people deserve a second shot at saying something that I may have just misinterpreted. But then that there is more than one post just seemingly taking his word for it was utterly appalling to me, hence the rest of the disappointment.

My initial refusal to argue with the post on its own terms is, internally, the same sort of justification I have for not beating up a weakling who starts getting physical—maybe it feels like they “had it coming” in a way, but it doesn’t make the retaliation justifiable the way I see it. If my refusal to engage directly is regarded as contemptuous, I can live with that. I was just trying to avoid posting something much less kind like “dude, did you read the actual report [which addresses a lot of points you brought up]?” or embarrassing in front of everyone else like “dude, did you read the actual report [which is written with citations all over the place]?” and it seems I struck out. I suppose I’m using up strike 3 here. It was not my intention to offend, but it seems I have, and I apologize (as I frequently have to do) for my occasional inability to speak in a harmony-conducive way.