Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I'll lay out the rough process my mind went through upon encountering this thread:
1. I found a provocative title saying I should question the throttle-stop method of testing mods.
2. The OP contained no information other than links, which I despise. Links should have commentary to a. take a position b. illuminate the relevant part of the link c. summarize the point
3. Someone posted an excerpt that was meant to be relevant, which I did not find to be relevant. I commented on that.
4. I glossed over and skipped most of the posts other than those in response to me.
5. I responded to your post since it was relevant to my misunderstanding.
I've got plenty of cause to dismiss aerohead, but I don't because I appreciate a good-faith representation of ideas. That isn't to say the idea is fully formulated, articulated, or even correct, but it comes from a place of candor. Candor I respect above all else.
I'm as irritated by others who don't agree with my careful illumination of the obvious, but even a refusal to "see the light" is baked into existence. Ultimately I have to end with saying I disagree, I have provided sufficient evidence to support my point of view, and you'll need to be specific with the thing you disagree with or don't quite understand.
|
Skipping posts is always a problem in a thread, because (as in this case) your point was answered multiple times before you made it.
And I can't see how Aerohead can possibly be regarded as acting in good faith when he didn't understand the approach (or even try to understand, it appears - it's a pretty simple method) and then told everyone it didn't work, shouldn't be used, etc.
Good faith would have been to ask questions so that he could understand the method, and then perhaps test it for himself - not pass judgement in complete ignorance.