Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.