Mister Scratch wrote:Let's backtrack a moment. I asked, "Why did he go silent?" suggesting that he went silent because he could not provide an adequate defense against the criticism (bear in mind that this was after he 'threw down the gauntlet' by accusing me and others of having not read the article). You countered by saying, "Well, he probably felt a sense of futility in trying to have a conversation." My point is: What, is his "sense of futility" the sort of thing that "comes and goes"? He obviously has no problem responding when he feels like it... Why is it that he went dead silent after I'd posted an in-depth review of his article?
Hope that clarifies, ABman.
I think I understand your POV, but I also think Dr. Peterson might view some things as not worthwhile--that it would take too much effort to clarify all the things you, as he says, misinterpret. In other words, the selective silence and selective resopnsese probably has more to do with how he thinks other people will benefit, not how he thinks he can better communicate with you. Personally I think decent communication between the two of you is nigh impossible at this point as both seem convinced that the other is likely to be less-than-forthright.
And what credibility? I wasn't aware that I had any whether it be here or at MA&D.
You obviously feel that you've got *some*, or else you wouldn't feel the need to interject stuff like, "Hey, I'm not accusing, I'm just trying to clear the air," etc., etc. Right? Anyways, *I* normally find you to be quite credible, even if I don't always agree with you.
Cynic that I am, I feel like the only time I have any credibility with people is when I agree with them. I am glad to hear that this may not always be the case. It is true that I try to act in such a way that I could be credible to myself, but I try not to assume that others share my opinion of being credible.
You can see examples of his name-calling and viciousness in the current "O What A Tangled Web We Weave" thread, or on my blog, under the "DCP Doesn't Like Us" entry. He has called me, among other things, "mentally unbalanced," "mendacious," a "brazen liar," etc., etc. He likes to portray himself as being superior to Tal Bachman and others on RfM in this regard, but the truth is that he is just as much of a name-caller as they are.
Yes, but his insults are more high-brow than RfM's. ;o)
In any case, has there truly been a noticable increase in this sort of thing since your critical remarks on FARMS Review? I seem to recall such things happening beforehand as well.