Friday, March 6, 2015

Bart, it's about dissecting tactics

There's a very cool website by Bart Verheggen an atmospheric scientist, called "My view on climate change" - it's what I'd classify as a "big boys and girls" blog in that the issues are dealt with in an educated civil manner.  The science gets front and center stage over there.  It's fun to look in on and sometimes toss in my two cents.  It's also fun because he's got an "Open Thread" which is just what it implies.  He has humored me and allowed various musings over there.  Recently there was an interesting exchange that I won't rehash, because my comment is plenty self-explanatory - this version has been enhanced with hindsight and editing. 

Bart Verheggen Says: March 6, 2015 at 17:59
Citizen and cjw, You’ve both said what you wanted to say it seems, let’s leave it at that. The current conversation is no longer constructive.

March 6, 2015 at 19:40
Bart, yes, sort of, kind of… but you see, there is a lesson in it though.

I appreciate that I’m a bit irritating to some of you more serious educated folks. Still, my little thing is to really get inside the structure of the rhetorical manipulation going on – study it at close range, learn to understand it, watch it in action and hopefully from time to time be able to write about it and explain it along with highlighting it’s intellectual bankruptcy.

This little exchange with cjw was another interesting example. Please consider her opener:
March 3, 2015 at 20:37 @citizenschallenge cjw: “I skimmed the article and initially failed to get the gist of it. The text is poorly structured and the writing style unappealing. Not to mention the irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science.”
~ ~ ~
Then go through cjw’s subsequent torrent of words. Nowhere do we get back to this: “irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science” – or examples of my poor writing style. I have not acted defensive and welcomed, hell I practically begged for critique – but all I get is superior folks telling me it's too irrelevant to consider.
(For what it’s worth, I’ve been engaging their contrarian games going back to the days when Letters to the Editor via USPS was all there was, as they say I been around.)

Nowhere does cjw offer specific examples or critique. Instead what you’ll find is a flow of demeaning insults intended to make clear I’m too worthless to even consider communicating with, though cjw’s the one that initiated our exchange. Skim though it, if I'm wrong, show me where.

cjw always baiting and pulling attention away from the substance of what she was allegedly taking issue with. Making me the issue, rather than my words, you know like, quoting from my essay and then explaining why I was wrong. Instead, self-anointed superiority and certitude. It’s an age old tactic that continues to work all too well.

Objective honest learning is what we need. I can’t contribute to the science, but I can contribute to helping some people better understand the dynamics of the game that’s been kicking your collective academia’s asses for the past decades.

And Bart, I very much appreciate your allowing me to share my lengthy thoughts on your platform

Thank you, CC


No comments: