sigh.

First the sloppy thinker changes what he wrote, after being corrected, and 
calls his revisions a "clarification" of what he'd really been saying all 
along.

Now the sloppy thinker says he was being "creative" when he used the same 
words as me but in a way that was completely different from how I meant 
them.

See?  He cannot admit error.  In the first example, he didn't mis-state 
the facts; I simply misunderstood him.  And in the second example, he 
didn't miss what I was saying and thereby reply in error; no, he was 
simply being "creative" and it's my fault for not getting that.

As it happens, this latest incident occurred in the context of him 
defending a "creative" filmmaker from accusations of sloppiness.  Like 
follows like, I guess.

The filmmaker, of course, wasn't trying to have an actual conversation 
with anyone.  The sloppy thinker, on the other hand, was.  Or so I 
thought.  (Otherwise why reply in the first place?)

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot