First of all, let me outline some of the vital the differences between “personal claims” and “general claims”. The reasons for it will become clear eventually. So…
A strictly personal opinion or claim holds certain safeguards and privileges as it by definition only concerns and is representative for the person who expressed that opinion/claim – thus tradition would have us greet it with leniency as it usually does not concern the rest of us anyway. The usual way to signify that it is in fact a personal claim/opinion is to insert the “for me”-clause or similar within the claim. That way there is no question about what it is and thus it will be, and can be, expected to be treated accordingly…
Now, a public and general claim aims to be universal and valid at a collective level – as in elevated above and beyond the person that makes the claim – it is essentially declared to concern all of us somehow. Due to that very circumstance the terms and rules for such claims are radically different then personal ones - and all safeguards and privileges are long gone with it. We enter the realm of facts, basis, credibility and relevance - as these are the only stuff that matter at this level – while we also leave all the personal and subjective stuff behind us it is irrelevant in a universal context. The reason for that practice is obvious; the subjective and personal simply fails to concern or be valid for us all - and it is not truly dependent on facts. At a collective level, facts is the only thing we can truly deal with as these remain valid for all of us regardless what we may personally think of them. They just are, no matter our opinions of them.
If the facts are unknown to us, we then rely on basis, relevance and credibility to provide strength to our claim. The more the better. Now, tradition has it that all public and general claims are allowed to be tested and examined to determine if they are actually valid or not - as declared. This is called scrutiny, and anybody is within their full rights to exercise scrutiny upon any public claim anywhere, and whenever they feel like it. As a result, the only way public claims can hope to survive somehow are to rely on facts, basis and credibility – and plenty of it to support and strengthen the claim.
All claims that have these things, and in good order, are usually referred to as “serious” - while claims that somehow is lacking in such regards are called “unserious”. “Serious” essentially means a credible and valid claim, while “unserious” essentially means a faulty and defect claim – usually of too poor quality to be taken into any serious consideration by the collective hence the term “unserious”. Both categories must be explained and warranted when declared as either one (serious/unserious) - that is the global tradition. Tradition also has it that all claims of explicit sub-standard quality should be ignored on sight. The textbook example of that is a claim without any basis to support it somehow.
With those distinctions cleared up….
So why do I have problems with your supposed “impressions” in the first place? First of all, there are no clear distinctions between what are general claims and what are personal claims within these supposed “impressions” of yours. For me that is not acceptable due to the scale of your claims.
They may be presented as mere personal impressions but in reality they are essentially formulated as public and general claims. How so? For starters, they essentially lack the vital “for me” clause and add to that a frequent categorical style in within these claims. That circumstance further suggests it to have universal intentions rather then limited personal ones. Hence the only rational interpretation and explanation is that they are not personal claims as they are clearly not devised and functional as such. The only alternative left is that of public and general claims. So, it is like declaring a train to be an airplane essentially – it simply does not add up. Thus misinterpretations are very possible as a result as their status as either personal or public claims is not truly traceable, if it were then I would not be writing this, now would I?
Furthermore, the stuff is far too bold and categorical to actually comply with any standard concepts of “impressions” - as defined in dictionaries. For instance, “One Nubian Slayer does not count”. That doesn’t leave much room for doubt as it is clearly not formulated accordingly to what it is claimed to be – an impression. It is a declaration, and a universal declaration at that - as it is categorical. It simply leaves no room for alternatives and/or exceptions and it is nowhere near “I don’t think one Nubian slayer should count” - which could have been a functional personal impression (not a very good one but still a possible one).
Now, regardless what these impressions are actually interpreted or intended as, they still have chronic problems with lacking basis all the same - as there virtually are none. Much of it is inaccurate, flawed (or even false or plain irrelevant at times). In essence, it simply creates unnecessary problems and promotes flawed information in the process. That is counterproductive and misleading to the casual reader.
I do have an obligation to ensure that people who come here is not provided with flawed and false information, as I am responsible for this place. The casual reader must be able to rely and trust this place - and above all on the information they can find here as this is indeed a public space, not a personal one. If they can not do that – then their motive to come here is gone (and thus the whole point of this forum is also gone). That is exactly why I don’t want to see any such stuff here in the first place as it is by definition counterproductive here.
So, let us leave it at that as long as you don’t do this stuff again.
Re: MTW-Redux Beta Released!
Originally Posted by Marku
Reply With Quote
would be most happy!
Bookmarks