Honest Semantics

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
Don't agree at all....one could easily read tone into Bonnie's comment...everyone brings their view points to public forums...but the clear trend on these forums, and some people's clear history, is to assume the worst of people when they post something negative about TM.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with that conclusion.

I agree it happens sometimes, and that it happens in both directions and that there is a distracting amount of time spent on it. It doesn't seem to help that some seem to often want to put people into groups -- i.e. push for "I see a conflict between A and B people" rather than focus on "I see a brewing mismatch that we should probably address at the content level".

That said...

Track record does matter for what you might call "reputation of the poster" (no I don't mean the green notches in the profile). Take a look at the OP's post history and you see a dominance of "Tesla did something horrible and they better address it immediately" tone repeated. If your posts are read by most as "OMG, what is he/she complaining about this time" it's natural that people will assume you have an agenda and/or probably should have given up on Tesla as "too young" long ago rather than (apparently) being constantly disappointed. I seem to remember "<username> is unhappy again" threads being born for this reason in the past.

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

brianman said:
That's your opinion. I don't agree with that conclusion.

I agree it happens sometimes, and that it happens in both directions and that there is a distracting amount of time spent on it. It doesn't seem to help that some seem to often want to put people into groups -- i.e. push for "I see a conflict between A and B people" rather than focus on "I see a brewing mismatch that we should probably address at the content level".

More than happy to have an honest conversation about this, but that requires honesty. If you are suggesting that in the majority of posts where the OP is critical of TM he/she isn't primarily and immediately flamed and called to task, well then we can't have that honest dialogue.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
More than happy to have an honest conversation about this, but that requires honesty. If you are suggesting that in the majority of posts where the OP is critical of TM he/she isn't primarily and immediately flamed and called to task, well then we can't have that honest dialogue.

So now you're calling me dishonest? Not a great way to start a useful conversation.

Also, if you really feel this strongly about that topic you should create a thread in the Site Feedback section rather than pollute this thread so that (a) the focus here can remain on this apparently important and pervasive issue with the 20,000+ Model Ss that has been reported at least twice and (b) this important branch topic of fairness and openness on the forum can be treated directly and improved.

Since there sometimes is a clarity issue with forum text, I'll be direct: sarcastic and non-sarcastic portions are marked above.

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

brianman said:
So now you're calling me dishonest? Not a great way to start a useful conversation.

Also, if you really feel this strongly about that topic you should create a thread in the Site Feedback section rather than pollute this thread so that (a) the focus here can remain on this apparently important and pervasive issue with the 20,000+ Model Ss that has been reported at least twice and (b) this important branch topic of fairness and openness on the forum can be treated directly and improved.

Since there sometimes is a clarity issue with forum text, I'll be direct: sarcastic and non-sarcastic portions are marked above.

I don't believe this implies you are dishonest I believe it suggests that an honest conversation requires taking a hard look at everything. A bit of a leap on your part...unfortunately not uncommon, but I guess not unexpected.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
I don't believe this implies you are dishonest I believe it suggests that an honest conversation requires taking a hard look at everything. A bit of a leap on your part...unfortunately not uncommon, but I guess not unexpected.

The opposite of an "honest conversation" is a "dishonest conversation" which implies at least one party is being dishonest. As such, you were implying that at least one of us was being or would be dishonest.

Apparently we have a language barrier that is insurmountable if this isn't obvious to both of us.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

Newbie said:
Ok, but why is it an problem to you when people make other people aware of problems like this ? Isnt it better to bring these thinh´gs to attention?

Awareness is fine, but tone and expectations matter.

Let's take an example. Suppose your sister's husband is seen having lunch with another woman. Is your best first step to tell your sister that her husband is cheating on her and that she better get a divorce lawyer immediately (and maybe posting about that on facebook)? Or is there other investigation and follow-up that is worth doing first?

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

Don't agree wth that. Dishonest implies maliciously and knowing lying. An honest conversation doesn't imply that you were doing that.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
An honest conversation doesn't imply that you were doing that.

Please reread post #5. That's not what I said. I think you're mixing up the word "honest" and "dishonest" when you read that post previously.

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

don't think so, you accused me of accusing you of being dishonest. I said I wasn't. you said yes i was because i suggested having an honest conversation meant you weren't being honest before. I said, no, it does not because dishonest implies malice...etc etc...i believe you are the one who is confused.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
don't think so, you accused me of accusing you of being dishonest. I said I wasn't. you said yes i was because i suggested having an honest conversation meant you weren't being honest before. I said, no, it does not because dishonest implies malice...etc etc...i believe you are the one who is confused.

You implied prior discussion was "not honest conversation". It's not a leap of any kind to translate that to "dishonest conversation". From there it's not a leap to ask "Aren't participants in a dishonest conversation being dishonest?"

Once again, I think we just have a language barrier here. Because clearly you use words quite differently than I do.

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

brianman said:
You implied prior discussion was "not honest conversation". It's not a leap of any kind to translate that to "dishonest conversation". From there it's not a leap to ask "Aren't participants in a dishonest conversation being dishonest?"

Once again, I think we just have a language barrier here. Because clearly you use words quite differently than I do.

its a complete leap. You've never had someone say 'let's have an honest conversation' without it immediately implying your a dishonest person? you took an innocuous genuine effort to have a discussion and tried to make it into something it wasn't, plain and simple...but we aren't going to agree, so i'll let you get the final word in.

Krugerrand · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
its a complete leap.

I agree with brianman, not a leap. I read it exactly as he did.

You've never had someone say 'let's have an honest conversation' without it immediately implying your a dishonest person?

Honestly, :biggrin: if someone says to me 'let's have an honest conversation' or 'let's be honest here' or 'let me be honest with you', up goes my radar. It is my inherent nature to a) be honest, and b) automatically believe that the other person is being honest with me, if and until they prove otherwise. The first red signal to me that someone might not be being honest is if/when they have use a 'qualifier' like 'let's have an honest conversation'. Because frankly, what other kind is there anyway?

My most favorite 'qualifier' (also sometimes I call this a disclaimer) is 'I don't mean to insult you/hurt your feelings/fill in the blank, but...'

wormhole · Feb 17, 2014

Krugerrand said:
My most favorite 'qualifier' (also sometimes I call this a disclaimer) is 'I don't mean to insult you/hurt your feelings/fill in the blank, but...'

interesting...very interesting...

Sometimes it hard to keep the faith: repeated Supercharging failure and bad service - Page 8

Beavis · Feb 17, 2014

I don't mean to be rude, but......

bonnie · Feb 17, 2014

Beavis said:
I don't mean to be rude, but......

Bless your heart.

Beavis · Feb 17, 2014

I haven't heard that one since I moved out of the South.

Krugerrand · Feb 17, 2014

wormhole said:
interesting...very interesting...

I don't understand the point of linking to another post of mine that has nothing to do with the one here. How about you take your own advice and start an 'honest' conversation about what you're thinking is so very interesting?

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

Krugerrand said:
I don't understand the point of linking to another post of mine that has nothing to do with the one here. How about you take your own advice and start an 'honest' conversation about what you're thinking is so very interesting?

I think he was suggesting you're overly sensitive about using words correctly. But that's just a guess. I seem to have lost my wormhole decoder ring. I guess I need to buy more Stargate-branded cereal or something.

Krugerrand · Feb 17, 2014

brianman said:
I think he was suggesting you're overly sensitive about using words correctly. But that's just a guess. I seem to have lost my wormhole decoder ring. I guess I need to buy more Stargate-branded cereal or something.

Admittedly, I'm 'particular' about using words correctly for the very reason being demonstrated in this thread and a half dozen others on this forum. Am I overly sensitive? Depends on which definition we're using:

1.thoughtful and sympathetic: tactful and sympathetic in relation to the feelings of others Well, this one is up for debate, especially the latter, which is mostly dependent on the cycle of the moon. :tongue:

2.touchy: easily offended or annoyed if something is spoken about Um...nope. Not even a little.

3.secret or confidential: not to be mentioned or divulged Just checked - no non-disclosure form.

brianman · Feb 17, 2014

Krugerrand said:
1.thoughtful and sympathetic: tactful and sympathetic in relation to the feelings of others Well, this one is up for debate, especially the latter, which is mostly dependent on the cycle of the moon. :tongue:

It's a trap! Not touching that one.

Honest Semantics

Burrito Founder

Banned

Burrito Founder

Banned

Burrito Founder

Burrito Founder

Banned

Burrito Founder

Banned

Burrito Founder

Banned

Meow

Banned

Model S Signature 991

I play a nice person on twitter.

Model S Signature 991

Meow

Burrito Founder

Meow

Burrito Founder

Similar threads