Replies

Dear Serenissima Venezia,

"Now what you did was a rant. What you called a rant was a calm, well-articulated opinion."

You may need to go back and examine each post in question, or review your standards for a rant.

From SALChamps03's post:

"Any opinion that doesn't purport homeschooling to be the Second Coming of Christ is automatically dismissed."

The hyperbole employed in this post is clearly rant material. Usually, calm posting does not invoke the Second Coming of Christ, especially considering that some readers may take offense to this as a mild blasphemy.

"You are trying to pin me down to your view that homeschooling is always the right choice, every parent is qualified to do it, and every child is able to handle it."

The absolutizing and polarizing of opinions is a sign of a rant. The lack of factual basis (I don't think the poster has asserted that homeschooling is always the right choice, or that every parent is qualified to do it, or that every child is able to handle it [although I will point out that homeschooling is actually a more natural way of educating children, and thus, there are likely to be fewer children who can't "handle" it than who can't handle "traditional" schools]) for the statement makes it all the more clear that it is a rant.

From Osage Orange's post:

"I asked that you site a source. You never did."

That's a statement of fact, and a bringing the conversation back to questions of fact. It's a legitimate point, it happens to be true. Not rant material.

"IMO, you dodged the question altogether."

The "IMO" ("in my opinion") qualifies the statement, leaving room for other conclusions, even while asserting that the poster believes this ("you dodged the question altogether") is the proper conclusion.

In fact, in reading over the exchange of posts between the two posters, Osage Orange appeals to SALChamps03 to offer his opinions backed up by some factual material, some citations, some sources, to make his claims, which seem outlandish, more credible. SALChamps03, in reality, never does provide any source, any citation. Osage Orange merely tries to move the conversation from the level of invective to the level of honest debate based on honest differences. It is SALChamps03 who reacts defensively, making bald assertions without factual evidence, who refuses to elevate the level of the discussion. As he has done with others, here.

I think you have it backwards. Your bias appears to be showing.

sitetest