Posted by KC Elbows on April 04, 2003 at 06:53:07:
In Reply to: Re: The Book of Moo posted by on April 03, 2003 at 21:56:48:
'Do what you want. But whatever cute asides you make don't change the fact.
Have a nice day!'
You didn't present a fact, you didn't even have the cojones to suggest a fact. Read your post. You did not directly say anything. Sure, you tried to infer(note the difference between trying and just inferring) some bias, but you couldn't substantiate one, especially since in my original post I mentioned that a variety of sources, including moo ones, were being used for this project. Essentially, I said 'Here is how I'm minimizing bias' and then you came in and asked 'how are you minimizing bias?'
Pay attention.
Really, I'm not even sure there's a term for the sort of thing you were trying to do. I'm amazed there is a less direct thing than inferrence, but you seem to have found it. Unfortunately, directness has its merits. You might consider using it more, the mode you adopted makes your opinions and ideas sound shallow, even when they are not. Most writers would find that, despite the venom, your initial response to my post used weak wording. You don't even make the idea of bias concrete, you SORT OF suggest that it might be. Frankly, there's probably a reason there's no technical term for wording that weak.
I'm sure it serves your purpose normally, but when you're entering into a literary debate, you're under a different standard for wording. By SORT OF inferring, you're not just saying I'm biased, and then having to back up your claim. Because you really haven't directly said anything, you don't have anything you have to back. You merely ascribe to me a mindset that I've suggested my method for countering, should such bias exist in me, before you even replied.
Of course, I would be surprised if you took advantage of my constructive criticism.
*; =qq(