|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 9, 2013 0:14:05 GMT -5
Konrad,
If you wouldn't even think of bothering KM about an "issue" like this, then why did you ask me to contact KM and bother him about this "issue"?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 9, 2013 1:10:07 GMT -5
Konrad, If you wouldn't even think of bothering KM about an "issue" like this, then why did you ask me to contact KM and bother him about this "issue"? Jeff. Because I feel you would be willing to bother him for that video.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 9, 2013 7:53:37 GMT -5
That's an unacceptably weak explanation.
If the issue is not important enough for you to request another video taken from another viewing angle, then you should leave it to me to independently decide whether the issue is important enough to me to request another video of Kellie Oride's swing.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 9, 2013 11:58:07 GMT -5
you should leave it to me to independently decide whether the issue is important enough to me to request another video of Kellie Oride's swing. You have my approval to independently decide.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 9, 2013 17:08:13 GMT -5
Why should I need your approval to independently decide whether to contact KM, or not?
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 9, 2013 17:20:50 GMT -5
I didn't specifically say you needed my approval.
I just gave it to you because I want to leave it to you to independently decide without any interference from me. Isn't that what you suggested I should do?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 9, 2013 17:49:30 GMT -5
I suggested that I should be able to independently decide whether I wanted another KM-video, or not. I didn't suggest that I need your approval in order to make independent decisions regarding this issue. I now suggest that you refrain from making unnecessary comments that can be perceived to be confrontational - unless confrontation is your desired goal.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 9, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5
I suggested that I should be able to independently decide whether I wanted another KM-video, or not. I didn't suggest that I need your approval in order to make independent decisions regarding this issue. I now suggest that you refrain from making unnecessary comments that can be perceived to be confrontational - unless confrontation is your desired goal. Funny that you make a comment about me making unnecessary comments that could be considered confrontational because that's exactly how I am perceiving all your comments towards me. I just suggested that you could possibly ask Kelvin to video KO from a camera view that would show her lead wrist from impact to the finish and when you came back at me that I should ask him and I told you it wasn't that important to me to bother Kelvin about it, you seemed to take that as an insult towards you and you started this tit-for-tat exchange with a bad attitude. I tried to lighten it up with some clever retorts, but, you kept it going in a negative tone like I was insulting your intelligence. From the tone of your post above, it seems to me your desired goal is confrontation not mine. I told you before, I post while keeping in mind a sense of humor/respect and that I'm not interested in trying to "one-up" you about anything being discussed. then you should leave it to me to independently decide [/b][/size] This is what you wrote. I can only perceive the words; "Then YOU (meaning me) should leave it to me (meaning you) to independently decide" as you telling me that's what I should do. I didn't suggest you "needed" my approval either. Big misunderstanding I guess. As for the issues themselves that we seem to be hopelessly divided about, I think it would be a good idea to agree to disagree. That's strictly how I feel about it. I can only hope you might agree with me. I'm not suggesting that you should decide one way or the other because I'm telling you to, just giving you my feeling about any further discussions about dual ER or flipping. For me, the discussions about these two issues has reach a point where nothing I say will change your thinking and nothing you say will change my way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 9, 2013 21:06:17 GMT -5
Konrad,
You wrote-: "I think it would be a good idea to agree to disagree. That's strictly how I feel about it. I can only hope you might agree with me. I'm not suggesting that you should decide one way or the other because I'm telling you to, just giving you my feeling about any further discussions about dual ER or flipping. For me, the discussions about these two issues has reach a point where nothing I say will change your thinking and nothing you say will change my way of thinking."
I agree that it's a good idea to agree to disagree. I never have a problem with that approach. However, that doesn't mean that I will not comment further about these topics of disagreement - not to convince you, but to demonstrate to other forum members that there are alternative ways of thinking about these issues.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by konrad on Oct 9, 2013 22:44:12 GMT -5
I agree that it's a good idea to agree to disagree. I never have a problem with that approach. However, that doesn't mean that I will not comment further about these topics of disagreement - not to convince you, but to demonstrate to other forum members that are alternative ways of thinking about these issues. Great, and I'll reserve the right to make further comments too, also not to convince you, but to express alternative ideas about the issues being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by burner on Oct 11, 2013 18:17:39 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
Isn't it time that we all learned to take the views of others at face value - simply their view - rationalise it and agree or just move on.
This constant bickering over semantics proves nothing more than a reluctance to keep an open mind and be objective rather than subjective.
Going nowhere was never my favourite journey but exploring all routes in search of the truth would benefit us all.
Accepting that others may see things differently, or simply express similar views in their own unique way, should provoke debate rather confrontation.
No one is always right; nor has the right to be so. The sole arbiter of what we each believe is our selves and we should embrace, and respect, the views of all when arriving at our own conclusions.
Meanwhile, please try to see things from the other persons perspective rather than seize upon what you see, rightly or wrongly, as opportunities to prove superiority.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Oct 11, 2013 23:13:14 GMT -5
Burner,
You wrote-: "This constant bickering over semantics proves nothing more than a reluctance to keep an open mind and be objective rather than subjective.
I don't believe that we are arguing about semantics. We (Konrad and I) are debating an issue related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics where we simply present contrary subjective opinions. It doesn't imply a closed mind, but simply a disagreement and a mutual unwillingness to concede that one has been proved wrong. That's why we agree to disagree. The idea of being "objective" is impossible - because all opinions expressed by any person re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics will be subjective.
You also wrote-: "Accepting that others may see things differently, or simply express similar views in their own unique way, should provoke debate rather confrontation."
I think that debate is confrontation - a confrontation of different perspectives/opinions. I don't resent Konrad disagreeing with me and presenting an alternative perspective/opinion. If I eventually deem the debate to be going "nowhere" because of irreconcilable opinions, then I deem it to be very civilized to "agree to disagree". I presume that Konrad thinks in a similar manner because he agreed to disagree.
You also wrote-: "Meanwhile, please try to see things from the other persons perspective rather than seize upon what you see, rightly or wrongly, as opportunities to prove superiority".
Trying to prove that one's opinion is superior is what induces a forum member to argue vigorously. I don't have a problem with that type of behaviour. I expect other forum members to try and prove me wrong and try to prove that their opinion is superior. Why should I resent that type of attitude if the debate is vigorous and if the forum member avoids overt ad hominem attacks on another forum member's character, rather than his reasoning? I don't mind Konrad (or Jeffy) stating that his opinion re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics/geometry is superior to mine, especially if he tries to demonstrate why he believes it to be true, because that generates an opportunity for further debate (further confrontation).
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by burner on Oct 12, 2013 17:32:22 GMT -5
Burner, You wrote-: " This constant bickering over semantics proves nothing more than a reluctance to keep an open mind and be objective rather than subjective.I don't believe that we are arguing about semantics. We (Konrad and I) are debating an issue related to golf swing biomechanics/mechanics where we simply present contrary subjective opinions. It doesn't imply a closed mind, but simply a disagreement and a mutual unwillingness to concede that one has been proved wrong. That's why we agree to disagree. The idea of being "objective" is impossible - because all opinions expressed by any person re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics will be subjective. You also wrote-: " Accepting that others may see things differently, or simply express similar views in their own unique way, should provoke debate rather confrontation." I think that debate is confrontation - a confrontation of different perspectives/opinions. I don't resent Konrad disagreeing with me and presenting an alternative perspective/opinion. If I eventually deem the debate to be going "nowhere" because of irreconcilable opinions, then I deem it to be very civilized to "agree to disagree". I presume that Konrad thinks in a similar manner because he agreed to disagree. You also wrote-: " Meanwhile, please try to see things from the other persons perspective rather than seize upon what you see, rightly or wrongly, as opportunities to prove superiority". Trying to prove that one's opinion is superior is what induces a forum member to argue vigorously. I don't have a problem with that type of behaviour. I expect other forum members to try and prove me wrong and try to prove that their opinion is superior. Why should I resent that type of attitude if the debate is vigorous and if the forum member avoids overt ad hominem attacks on another forum member's character, rather than his reasoning? I don't mind Konrad (or Jeffy) stating that his opinion re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics/geometry is superior to mine, especially if he tries to demonstrate why he believes it to be true, because that generates an opportunity for further debate (further confrontation). Jeff. Jeff, Thank you for your considered response.
|
|