When you read between the lines with discernment you see this: The plan is right on course.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Purkiss contributes a heck of a lot more to this board than you. People with glass houses should not be throwing stones!
Guess it depends on how you define “contribution”.
As I said, my observation was a general one.
This purkiss syncophancy from the peanut gallery is a weird response, though. Who is purkiss, exactly, and when did he/she/it become above reproach?
0h dear, we have a positivist, demanding objective proof. Let me help you: We don't live in the 60s or 70s anymore. The interactions between people cannot be scientifically measured, no matter how you try, except for perhaps counting them.
Positivists tend to invalidate ethnographic content that tells a story, for example. Reading between the lines is known as finding meaning. It is an accepted practice academically under the banners of post-positivist constructionism, for example, so why the resistance?
I don’t reject it as a part of the process, I reject the idea of it as a process in and of itself.
I was attempting to make a general observation, but let’s bring it back to the original issue: Q may be posting again. Purkiss, with the certainty that only purkiss can project, asserts that those employing this “meaning finding” practice can categorically know that it is indeed Q.
In my opinion, this is foolishness. The idea doesn’t even fit the paradigm Q laid out, which is to think logically, question everything, gather evidence, and use our faculties of reason to determine the veracity of a thing.
Am I saying purkiss’ conclusion is false? I am not.
Am I saying that purkiss’ methodology for discerning truth leaves much to be desired? I am.
What I will refer to here as the “purkiss effect” is pretty simple. Purkiss has learned, either consciously or unconsciously, that projecting certainty attracts those who are uncertain. It meets a psychological need for both them, and him/her/it.
Am I saying purkiss should stop? I am not. We are each doing our best, and deserve to be treated with dignity, which means we deserve to be allowed to pursue the truth in whatever ways we see fit, unless they are causing an imminent threat to the well being of our selves or others.
Am I saying there is a better way? I am. And I would invite people to consider that assertion, and study it out, and make a determination for themselves.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and questions. I hope this makes my position more clear.