I have no idea how your quote of my post got chopped up like that. The contents of the “Details” (labeled “Caveat”) describes a side discussion that may/possibly should be broken out because it is truly tangential to the overall conversation. The quote version seems to reorder things and reverse my meaning.
Okay, I’ll try to be more detailed and address these two together. I’m asserting that an ongoing conversation cannot be logically segmented in a hierarchical manner.
To this point, the back-and-forth between the two of us is comprised of posts
56, 57, 59, 62, 63, 66, 67 & now 71. In a threaded model, these would be their own little tree.
Such a view would, however, be inaccurate. The presentation of my post 62 was influenced by Vel’s 61, and further reflection on it, as well as Piffy’s observation,
have lead me to my current position. There have been other influences, of course, but these are the most direct that I am aware of.
If you note that the arguments I’m advancing have evolved, even in this fairly short time period, you would be correct. I’ve adjusted and refined my ideas as I integrate the various parts of the conversation going forward. If I’d had to work through a threaded interface, the tree-like structure itself would have funneled me into an echo chamber where it was just the two of us, and the cross-pollenation of ideas would never have happened.
If this is how you approach online discussions - speed-running to the next direct response without at least skimming the intervening material to absorb the gist of it - I would respectfully suggest that you are:
- Depriving yourself of a more nuanced, broad view of the conversation as it has taken place.
- Depriving others in the conversation of a reasoned response that takes into account what has already been said, at least in cases where there are multiple people chiming in at the same time.
I might postulate that this behavior has at least partly been taught to you by threaded discussion models. I suspect that this is how you get Reddit threads that have:
- The same comment repeated in multiple locations by different users.
- An insightful observation that never gets responded to, and therefore has no effect on the discussion because it’s buried 2 or 3 deep in a thread that didn’t get much love due to its own first post not being flashy enough.