You see, going back to the post that started this, I believe you should have worded it differently, making your meaning clearer, so that I could have written an affirming comment about the idea itself, without the necessity of having to ferret out what you really meant by the post. That is what I meant by more "productive" dialouge.
So, since we agree that I should have either asked you what you meant, or just ignored the post altogether, would you agree with me that your first post to this thread did not clearly represent what you were thinking about at the time?
I believe that there is a 50-50 blame relationship between improper assumptions made, and the incomplete conveyence of meaning. Call it contributory negligence. I accpet my 50%, and I wonder if you will accept yours, or do you reject this thesis?
We don't agree as such. My position is that if a post is unclear to you, then you would be wise to ask a question about it instead of making an assumption. Why, in a dialogue, would you not make use of communication to resolve questions?
I said nothing about ignoring.
... would you agree with me that your first post to this thread did not clearly represent what you were thinking about at the time?
No, it represented exactly what I was thinking. The problem is that it wasn't exactly what YOU were thinking and you chose to assume/invent a concept to assist you in assimilating the post. This is behavior consistent with an individual who is not aware of the option of ASKING for clarification. In a dialogue, there is no reason to assume when you can ask.
The reason FR (and similar forums) are so much more productive than one-way communication is that there is the opportunity for two-way communication. Why would you forego this opportunity?