Or, we could simply read what people post to us, really THINK about it, and say "Thanks; I never thought of it that way."
And this is precisely why we need some ontological and epistemological standards.
"we could simply read what people post to us" -- conditional tense, could. We could also "could not."
"really THINK about it" -- begs the question: what makes you think this doesn't happen? Or is it the case that to "really" think about something is code-word for "think about it the same way I do"?
"I never thought of it that way" -- on what basis do you make the assumption that "it" was "never thought of" in "that way"? Or are we assuming that every single post is a unique, discrete chestnut of wisdom? The gods know mine aren't, but perhaps I lack imagination.
One sees this time and again -- "you didn't do what I said, therefore you're not listening; you're stubborn; etc."
Posters -- me, K4D, among others -- are often accused of being "defensive" or of "disregarding" things. Isn't it within the realm of possibility that it is they who say such things who are the defensive ones? "Well, you didn't take MY suggestion, so sod off!"
If thoughts and advice are freely given, they are given with no expectation concerning how they will be received, evaluated, used, discarded, etc. But often it seems this isn't the case -- thoughts and advice are conditionally given.
And if that's going to be the rule hereabouts, again I say that's great. But let's be clear and above-board about it. Let's just begin every post with "Hello DBGuy2: I am about to offer you some thoughts and demand that you agree with them...."
