Tut tut, no need to get upset.
From the outset, I established the parameter upon which I am
focussing, namely that the Forum is part of a publication aimed at
a wide readership, for which the writing style needs to be made
accessible.
If you haven't noticed, I have not disagreed with you about the
actual quality of the writing style. In another setting I would
certainly appreciate it even more. What I have been saying is that
for a publication meant for 370,000 people at least, such an
inaccessible writing style is ill-advised, and thus far you have
failed to address that point to a degree where I am inclined to
change my stance. If I need to be blunt, I shall be: I am willing
to change my stance as long as I am convinced there is a need to do
so.
Vis-a-vis your platitudes about improving one's written abilities,
I have already said that I have no argument with that, but that is
beside the point here. Coming back to my main point,
beautifully-written language that fails to impart the point is
style without substance in any format or setting. In sidestepping
that point and going into the subject of self-improvement
strategies for one's vocabulary, it is in fact you who have failed
to demonstrate empathy for Beyond Religion's concerns, and your
pronouncements of how people should improve themselves raises
questions about your sincerity.
Your slips are starting to show on a number of fronts:
- First, you obviously don't know the meaning of mania. If I had
said that it was possible to present Lee's points in plain English
and then failed to follow through on presenting an example, then
yes, I would have been a maniac because my beliefs in my abilities
would have outstripped reality. However, since I have backed up
what I have said, by definition I am not a maniac. The same goes
for narcissism - by definition, I would have had to have made a
series of claims about my qualities that I then proceed to fail to
demonstrate, and then insisted upon those claims in full knowledge
that they have not been demonstrated. Again, you don't have
evidence of that on hand, so it's misuse of the term. If you wish
to accuse me of being egotistical, arrogant and a plain smartarse,
I'll accept that, but the other two descriptions simply do not fit
their defintions and using terms with which you are not familiar
makes you look, well, silly.
- Second, I have not at any point made mention of any such thing as
"vain press". I have, however, talked about vanity press, which has
entirely different connotations - if you knew the actual meaning of
the phrase I doubt you would have taken umbrage at my use of it in
this context, and you would not have made the additional mistake of
assigning a Freudian slip where there is none.
For all of your pontification about "try, try, try" and achieving
evolution, you've just demonstrated your lack of intellectual
integrity through your misuse of terms that have specific
defintions. I could justifiably label that hypocrisy, but I won't.
Perhaps I'll settle for "do as I say, not as I do". Here's a handy
tip: if you're speaking to a psychologist, make sure you know what
mania, narcissicm and Freudian slips actually mean before choosing
to use those terms.
- Third, Beyond Religion's gripe about Lee's letter is that the
writing style is inappropriate for the audience - if you haven't
noticed, the key point here is about suiting the writing to the
audience. The ST Forum itself and the subject matter are simply the
context in which the debate takes place. As DP knows, I no longer
live in Singapore, so the actual content of Lee's letter doesn't
matter a jot to me. As far as I'm concerned, whether Singapore
resembles Shanghai, Surrey or San Francisco has no effect of the
price of tea in China, if you'll pardon the pun. Getting caught in
the quagmire of discussing Singaporean politics would be a
distraction from the topic which I am here to discuss, namely the
challenge of suiting the writing to the audience. Did you not
realise this, or was this an attempt to buy some breathing
space?
Speaking of distractions, you have gone from discussing the matter
at hand to discussing interpersonal relations between us, which, to
be frank, really isn't my concern. What has that got to do with
this thread? As for "live and let live" and "agree to disagree", I
am well aware of both principles, to the extent that I use them
only when an impasse has been reached. Such an impasse does not
apply here since instead of presenting an equally strong
counterpoint you have been busy sidestepping.
Overall, instead of attending to the matter at hand, you have
chosen to launch an ad hominem attack, which really is just poor
form. Why not address the substance of the post instead of allowing
your posts to degenerate into personal attacks and forays into
fields of which you demonstrate no knowledge whatsoever?
Now that you've had your fun and vented your spleen, please return
to addressing the key issues.
