5 thoughts on “LOL”

  1. Hey guys. I'm just really busy working on lots of new stuff. So I take a sec and stop by Shlok's site and find Curtis reaming me a new one. Since I wasn't even involved in any of the previous conversation, not sure how I was even in line for this. It just seemed pretty unfair.

  2. I think Adrian's right. It's easy to escalate things when all that's at stake is perceptions. Snarky “lol's” certainly are one way. Guessing someone's motives probably another.

    That said, Curtis's original point does seem fair. (Unless we are both misunderstanding something?)

  3. “Snarky” ? Not nearly. More of a laugh to deflate the steam rather than anger after reading in a post that I had “misrepresented” my work.

    Granted, I totally understand that you guys approach my work from the Barnettian camp, so it's natural that you will have problems with it. I don't consider that to be a problem in the slightest. We don't think along the same lines and there is unlikely to be a way to resolve that.

    However, despite that difference, I would be more than happy to discuss/participate in constructive critiques of GG theory. In fact, a difference is approach is exactly the best way to accomplish this.

  4. John,

    Different perspectives are very valuable. You are right on that.

    However, a comment reading in full:

    “LOL. Curtis, why do you always answer the critics of your theoretical constructs with attacks and/or gross misrepresentations of my work?”

    Is neither informative nor does it deflate steam. Further, following it up by accusing an honest questioner of reaming you a new one does not deescalate, either.

    That said, a three way D5GW/GG/tdaxp blog series would be interesting…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *