ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I'm going off-topic here, on poll construction (and other things) rather than answering the poll itself, so you are forewarned, ignore if you wish ...
Something I've been fascinated with for a while now, is how different people respond when challenged. In the above example, you compliment the poster on discovering the hole in what you posted, recognizing that they were clever enough to catch this, and complimenting them on it. IMO, this is the best way to approach this.
If we look back at the other thread, when the contradiction is brought up to the OP, who obviously thought there was only one correct answer, and he had it, the response was to characterize the observation with:
And it could perhaps be perceived as being a little cowardly, as they avoided directly quoting the poster they obviously were referring to. So instead of admitting that there was a flaw in their logic, and accepting that pointing it out could be considered humorous in itself (it's not like it was pointed out with a "you dummy!" or anything like that, and included a few references that indicated an attempt at humor - 'chopping down the cherry tree' and 'quantum mechanics'), they decide to disparage the poster as a 'killjoy' with no sense of humor, and a 'plotter' (of what, I do not know)! I guess we have to leave the interpretation of "Sheeeeeeesh..." up to the reader? But it does not sound complimentary to me.
Yes, I find that fascinating. What can I say?
-ERD50
Very good. As the response was not verbal, the answerer avoided contradicting himself. ...Originally Posted by Lucantes View Post
But if it was a poll done on this website, the person wouldn't actually have to "say" (speak out loud) "yes" or "no" to answer the poll,...
Something I've been fascinated with for a while now, is how different people respond when challenged. In the above example, you compliment the poster on discovering the hole in what you posted, recognizing that they were clever enough to catch this, and complimenting them on it. IMO, this is the best way to approach this.
If we look back at the other thread, when the contradiction is brought up to the OP, who obviously thought there was only one correct answer, and he had it, the response was to characterize the observation with:
[-]Determined killjoys aren't "we"[/-] Were you able to laugh before you started plotting? Sheeeeeeesh...
And it could perhaps be perceived as being a little cowardly, as they avoided directly quoting the poster they obviously were referring to. So instead of admitting that there was a flaw in their logic, and accepting that pointing it out could be considered humorous in itself (it's not like it was pointed out with a "you dummy!" or anything like that, and included a few references that indicated an attempt at humor - 'chopping down the cherry tree' and 'quantum mechanics'), they decide to disparage the poster as a 'killjoy' with no sense of humor, and a 'plotter' (of what, I do not know)! I guess we have to leave the interpretation of "Sheeeeeeesh..." up to the reader? But it does not sound complimentary to me.
Yes, I find that fascinating. What can I say?
-ERD50
Last edited: