Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts:
Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter.
Previous to this, but down thread, in a response to my comment, Coleman had asked me:
What aversion to studying the human mind?
Then there ensues a series of comments between yourself, Coleman and others conducted from your perspective. By the end of Thursday such comments outnumbered those actually attempting to respond to the subject of emilmoller's diary by two to one. I have seen such activity described elsewhere as "hijacking." I did wonder if you felt impelled to change the terms of discussion to ones within which you felt more comfortable.
I have made this response at your request as a courtesy to you. I had the time due to a cold snap that has quelled my desire to do more landscaping. If my comments have upset or offended you, that was not my intent. I was just informing you of how I saw things. I usually do not find such "he said," then "he said" dialogues useful, but I am always willing to try to further understanding of the sort of discussion that I believe emilmoller was offering. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts: Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter. To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
It's really up to Colman top respond, but I don't see how his comment entails that he: "seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective." He was just saying, as he's entiitled to do, that he felt science - and art - were being caricatured. If you think that's wrong the appropriate response is to explain to him why, not allege that he is insisting on "his preferred scientific perspective."
OK, after the accusation that "all my attention" - pretty minimal in fact, is "perplexing" given your opinion of my interest in the subject of the diary, we now get the absurd accusation that I was involved in "hijacking" ! Paranoia rules.
I did NOT "change the terms of discussion" and frankly I resent the accusation that I did, supposedly to ensure "ones within which you felt more comfortable". I simply responded to a comment by Sven and that response was about how the arts and sciences are linked by things like the creative process and an interest in beauty - not so alien to the themes in the diary. That then led to some comments by Colman and TBG and I responded - it's a discussion. Your accusation about "hijacking" is absurd not only because my comment was not alien to the spirit of the diary, but also because there is no limitation on the number of comments which can be made. So the lack of many other comments on the diary is not because someone "hijacked it" - but because there weren't enougn people making comments - blame those who didn't comment, not those who did. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
