Posted by Cris (24.66.94.141) on November 09, 2003 at 09:43:56:
In Reply to: Re: Something for Chris... posted by DanZ on November 09, 2003 at 06:12:55:
:Call me crazy, but I am assuming that both learning and proper debating does require recognition of things learned, or of a recognition of view that perhaps one doesn’t understand or accept.
Because I didn’t see this, but rather a continuance of the same challenge i.e., the rebuttal statements from you allways had an opposing statement, but never any recognition of "hey, I didn't know that", case in point: glands responsible for secretion of testosterone and cortisol, your position stated as a “devils advocate”, was a continuation of a string of challenges that were unqualified , I answered as clear as clear can be, your response?
A blatant, “For now”, then a quick thanks for the knowledge exit. I hope you can see how this looks like you are only waiting for the next opportunity to enter another argument. So from my point of view, when will this end? I can appreciate your desire to learn and to speak out your open thoughts, however you must understand that if you continually use your unqualified postulates as challenges, which are answered by me with the full intent of helping to explain something to you, and your next response is yet another unqualified challenge, it seems as though you are unappreciative and are only looking for another argument. You may not be seeing how the way your writing portrays this. In written communication the subtleties of tone and body language are not present, so misunderstanding can be common. You may want consider not writing only challenges.
Thinking out loud is where we begin to make new ideas that we investigate, that allows us to learn new things. I caution you on skipping the investigating stage and making a positional statement or challenge before you know what’s going on, otherwise it looks like you only want to argue.
You should not feel dumb for asking questions, but at the same time should not be so bold to instigate an argument when it’s learning that you are after. You say you don’t want to argue, but you don’t lay things to rest, and continue an argument.
If you did actually read the contents of the paper I posted like you claim to have, then you would recognize that my position is in line with the post you entered as “add another dimension to the ongoing debate of fatigue/overtraining...”
So even where I am in agreement with what you post, you still are looking for a continuation of a debate.
I hope you can see your pattern.
I come here to learn as well, but I also recognize that I have a lot to offer, it seems that you may not think so.
I recognize that you say you are here to learn and don't want to be pushed away. You should stay, but maybe try to change your writing so things aren’t written as a continual debate.
Your last post to Juerg is a good example, it has more questions than statements. In this one it looks like you are truly interested in learning, but also have your own ideas that you want to investigate, you did not start and end with a challenge, but rather a good question. I look forward to more of this constructive questioning.