It wasn't a "horrified" denial, though it was an accurate one - my comment re clothes was a reply to this (http://www.livejournal.com/community/trennels/3795.html?thread=62419#t62419) post - so as you can see, I wasn't the one who initially linked the clothes to the horse. Which is what I originally said. I even replied to your apology to clarify that I had discussed it, just had not started the discussion, and have since, several times, clarified that my objection was primarily hand-me-down clothes for the children as compared to the money spent on a new horse.
I also asked in my original post, "Was Lawrie's reaction reasonable, or did other readers take it as just one more example of her throwing whiny tantrums?" - I'd say that that combined with the question about whether Mrs. Marlow was being reasonable shows that at that time I hadn't decided either way. If saying "Is is reasonable" implies I think it isn't reasonable, then according to your logic, I mustn't think either is reasonable.
Because, as you note yourself, questions are not intrinsically neutral.
I didn't make any such observation - you made a comment:
We can say that Mrs Marlow is there, making the parenting decisions that need to be made - which we, with the benefit of omniscent observers, get to criticise.
and I replied to it:
If we, as omniscent observers, shouldn't criticise her parenting decisions (and no parents are perfect), which you seem to be implying*, then perhaps this community should shut down.
The lack of question marks show that there isn't a question there. And I don't see how you can say my assumptions aren't up for question, when I actually say in the very post you've linked to with regard to my interpretation "* though I could of course be wrong about this!". I admit there and then that my assumption may be wrong - how is this being unprepared to debate it?
You're not making my implicit views explicit, you're stating your inferrals as though they are fact. Hardly the same thing. And that's what I'm objecting to. And you're refusing to admit that your inferrals could possibly, just possibly, be inaccurate readings - unlike myself.
I'm not going to continue this discussion, as basically it's devolving itno a "you said" "no, you said!", which is a) terrible boring for the observers, and b) frustrating for me when you obviously are superimposing your agenda and impressions on my actual words. If you want to actually answer the question ajhalluk put to you regarding whether or not you'd attack someone criticising Commander Marlow, or enter into a debate about his absentee fatherhood then of course I'll be happy to participate. But this is going nowhere.
no subject
I also asked in my original post, "Was Lawrie's reaction reasonable, or did other readers take it as just one more example of her throwing whiny tantrums?" - I'd say that that combined with the question about whether Mrs. Marlow was being reasonable shows that at that time I hadn't decided either way. If saying "Is is reasonable" implies I think it isn't reasonable, then according to your logic, I mustn't think either is reasonable.
Because, as you note yourself, questions are not intrinsically neutral.
I didn't make any such observation - you made a comment:
and I replied to it:
The lack of question marks show that there isn't a question there. And I don't see how you can say my assumptions aren't up for question, when I actually say in the very post you've linked to with regard to my interpretation "* though I could of course be wrong about this!". I admit there and then that my assumption may be wrong - how is this being unprepared to debate it?
You're not making my implicit views explicit, you're stating your inferrals as though they are fact. Hardly the same thing. And that's what I'm objecting to. And you're refusing to admit that your inferrals could possibly, just possibly, be inaccurate readings - unlike myself.
I'm not going to continue this discussion, as basically it's devolving itno a "you said" "no, you said!", which is a) terrible boring for the observers, and b) frustrating for me when you obviously are superimposing your agenda and impressions on my actual words. If you want to actually answer the question ajhalluk put to you regarding whether or not you'd attack someone criticising Commander Marlow, or enter into a debate about his absentee fatherhood then of course I'll be happy to participate. But this is going nowhere.