Do you find yourself using PMs for more intricate discussions? — Banno
It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually. — Banno
Nice. I had quite an extensive PM chat with him myself, but it became a bit odd and I ended it. I wish him well.we had deep conversations in Spanish — javi2541997
Oh, yeah. He was very helpful.I miss Isaac for this — fdrake
I think that entirely understandable. It's not arrogant to respect your own time.I rarely post anything anymore because I find it too much bother wading through trivial responses. — I like sushi
It's much easier to follow a deep discussion without interjection.
It's also easier for practical reasons. I don't have to flick back and forth between pages, and scroll up or down through irrelevant or even counterproductive material.
It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually. — Banno
Insert caveats about shared perspectives, bias and reasoning here. — fdrake
In other words, by using PM it's easier to avoid the masses who disagree with you, allowing you to escape into a fabricated world of illusion, with a close buddy. Avoid the distractions which reality forces upon you, and really build your own little dream scene.
When I want to escape into my own little world of creativity, I just pm myself. It's all done in the privacy and secrecy of my own mind, commonly known as thinking.
What's with the need for a buddy in your private and secret world of creativity? Do I detect a little insecurity? — Metaphysician Undercover
preach to his choir — Harry Hindu
It seems that much of what people talk about on this forum is what other philosophers have said, and what some philosophers said is always dependent upon what they knew about the world at their time, and their language reflects that. To someone that hasn't studied what some philosopher has said it may appear that some don't know what they are talking about.I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about. — Banno
quality — unenlightened
This is arguably what generated the quality submissions (i.e. the time allotted to composition). Quality diminishes when TPF is treated like Twitter and people post without first giving thought to the topic. — Leontiskos
Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. Of course, I created this thread specifically to run away from criticism, as always. :roll:Your response shows exactly why Banno might prefer a PM discussion. — J
Not a bad point. The PM conversations have usually resulted in a few corresponding posts in public, or a whole thread, so are not entirely lost to posterity.Paul used to say that our discussions should be conducted, not primarily for the benefit of the participants, but for the silent reader. No silent readers of pms, alas. — unenlightened
Cheers.But I rate Banno highly as a philosopher, and he does engage; some people find that unpleasant. — unenlightened
There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads.I don't feel obliged to respond to, or even read crap posts from crap posters, so, filtering is not much of an issue. — SophistiCat
Patience is not infinite.which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. — Hanover
Yes I remember reading your suggestions back then. I doubt the software allows such limits though. — unenlightened
Your response shows exactly why Banno might prefer a PM discussion. He poses a perfectly reasonable question to the members, and you slam into him. Why? What are you hoping that will achieve? If you think his ideas about PMs are open to some concerns, can't that be said civilly and respectfully? Sigh . . . I guess it's the world we live in today. — J
I believe the point of this thread is not to be philosophical but to ask us if we use private messages to interact privately with other members. — javi2541997
I believe the point of this thread is not to be philosophical but to ask us if we use private messages to interact privately with other members. — javi2541997
It states a personal opinion. The replies are bound to be opinions about the person, — Metaphysician Undercover
What are the other pros and cons? There's a small danger of creating echo chambers, of course, if there were no public interaction. And it doesn't add to my mentions or comments count... — Banno
So the response to such a question is abuse? — J
So let me see how this works. I say, "In my opinion, that's a beautiful painting." And you are "bound to reply", "You aren't very smart"? — J
That is, after all, the purpose of a place like this. — Hanover
Patience is not infinite. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.