Reply #113: Not "anyone," you specifically. You called an unspecified number of DUers

[autorank]

"unbalanced" in your statement. Carefully couched in generalities, located on the "nice" thread, you said that of the DU population there are "some people who are so unbalanced..." (you use a double negative but these are your words and this is the clear meaning. IMHO). Wow, you come here and call "some" DUers "unbalanced." Now that's not "nice" behavior, whether or not the "unbalanced" DUers disagree with you. Is is possible, by the way, to agree with your posts and be "unbalanced." (I'm having a Karl Popper moment here).

In my post below, "The Sorrow and the Pity" I did interpret your rhetoric as implying that "some" of those who disagree with you share that characteristic. How would you form such a judgment about your clearly stated phenomenon without direct experience? In order to be correct, the proposition needs to be capable of being proved incorrect, another Karl Popper moment. That's the nature of interetation. We disagee about these things sometimes.

Interpretation of posts is part of what goes on here. This forum is not just a recitation of facts, it's a dialog on opinion. My opinion is that the "straw man," the generic "unbalanced" and "disruptive" DUer is really a response to your experience at those who have taken strong exception to some of your opinions and actions. There you go.

Now, you said some time ago that you were not going to respond to my posts. That's why I posted my comment to Melissa G. I couldn't really let such a remark go unmentioned but I didn't want to post to you since you'd said you wouldn't respond (kind of like posting to someone who has you on ignore, not "nice"). Now your talking to me. Which is it? I will gladly go back to not posting to you, as I honored that request previously.

If you are going to respond, here are some questions from this post you might address in our dialog on civility (an interpretation of "nice").

1) Are you going to dismiss the posts of your hypothesized "unbalanced" DUers by saying, "You're obviously 'unbalanced'? or just leave it as a general claim, e.g., "I have a list (in your mind or on paper) of 400 (or whatever number) "unbalanced" DUers...but I can't/won't show it."
2) How did you hypothesize and test this proposition? Is it from direct experience or observation or both?
3) What is your definition of "unbalanced?" Do you mean this in a psychiatric sense, referring to some sort of mental health condition? 4) If so, what qualifies you to make such a statement?

There is a simple solution. You could just apologize for calling an unspecified number of DUer's "unbalanced." That would end the dialog and that would be a good thing.