You mean the topic or issue of the OP then? — Janus

No, not necessarily. Long posts here almost always ramble on about a bunch of different topics or issues.

OK, so you didn't mean "never focused" but "almost never focused". So those posts you actually read carefully, and are able to understand, hardly ever seem focused to you.

OK, so you didn't mean "never focused" but "almost never focused". — Janus

I haven't read every single post on the board. (Shouldn't that be obvious to you?)

I've never read a long post here that was focused.

OK, we're back to "never focused" again. I suppose you include your own posts in that? Do you read many long posts? I seem to remember you saying that you don't; so you wouldn't be in a position to judge whether they many of them were focused if that is true. Also when reading the few you do read, are you taking notice of whether they are focused? Because if you are not then you would be guessing.

Peace is required
Thus so many aspired

In its ground
All flowers found

Those who find it
carefully tend it

If it hides unseen
It means a past unclean

a heart that feels
under nature's claw reels

yet to a heart, sir, miss
that peace dearest is

A nagging thought
peace once got

more we may desire
grow the craving fire

forget that which has left
Untouchable to the softest deft

Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful post re: principle of charity and how it applies to autists.

I have met many autists in social circles, who you would never think they were. A woman, extreme beauty, rich, confided in me that when she asks her mother-in-law, "Do you get the newspaper seven days a week", the relative answers, "We don't get it on Saturdays." My acquaintance said, that this meant nothting to her: does the M-i-L mean she gets it on every day but Saturday? To my acquaintance it was an impossible conondrum to solve. Had she known and applied the Principle of Charity, she most likely would have interpreted that the M-i-L meant she gets the paper the other six days of the week.

The language is not as weak as some people think; the language is as weak as the user who uses it. It takes special skills to be unambiguous, and if the speaker does mind if she is misunderstood, then I think the onus is on her to be crystal clear in her communication.

Clear, unambiguous speech is just as inaccessible for most of the population, as for me to access the Principle of Charity properly.

A wise man or woman once penned, "Everybody lies, but it does not matter, since nobody listens." It is true, that reading and comprehension skills are lacking in our world. I wrote just yesterday a post , that I was harshly criticized for, only because the reader neglected to read two words in my argument. I was crystal clear, but s/he glided over words.

My autism dictates that I listen and read every word... can be very uncomfortable when in the company of very boring people.

Anyway, I am rambling. The upshot is, that the Principle of Charity is useful for normal people, who can substitute the gaps in the explanation or the gaps in the steps of logic, or the misspeaches with the right expressions fluently and without error. I believe this is a skill that more befits women. I can listen to a story with my aunt (she passed, this is an old example) and the speaker would talk about a woman, her mother-in-law, and a female cousin of the woman, and in the story she would use the female personal pronoun for all three. I would be lost by the second sentence, while my aunt would follow the story through, without any difficulties.

The sad ending of the story is that I perfectly well see the intention and the logical helpfulness of the Principle of Charity, but alas, I am unable to use it due to my disability. This is not a statement coming of defiance, it is a statement of the sad truth.

I don't write many long posts. I can't recall the last one I wrote.

I read long posts until they start introducing a bunch of different issues. You don't need to read them in their entirety for that. Often it happens within a few sentences.

No, I did not distort your story. — god must be atheist

Yes, you did distort what I wrote to you. And I already responded to that. I can't take you seriously because of how you distort an other's words; it looks to me like you'll say anything to prove yourself right. That's sad, hostile, manipulative and solipsistic.

I distorted your story only in retrospect. It appeared to be distorted to you, because you knew the whole story from the beginning, but you must admit that you did not WRITE the story correctly, you left out a lot of details and important information.

I see now how it happened. You assumed that your readers would assume a lot of things, and when I challenged you, you eventually and one-by-one filled out those gaps which you assumed I ought to have assumed.

It's your right and privilege to not take me seriously. I have no arguments against that. I, however, take your words seriously.

I don't write many long posts. — Terrapin Station

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

I write long posts. I love to hear my own keyboard's tap-tap-tappity-tap.

I, however, take your words seriously. — god must be atheist

Now you are lying. You never took my words seriously; your entire premise--that I can explain what I teach in one statement--is just silly. I never even told you what my subject matter is, but the idea that a professor teaches one thing is... not even worth responding to again.

You removed the context of what I wrote in order to create your little solipsistic strategy which was always focused on tearing down one or another of my statements. What makes me saddest of all is the overwhelming impression that you were never interested in any serious kind of exchange of ideas. My perception is that you were only interested in your need to prove me wrong. I feel compassion for you, but I won't engage with your hostility and deliberate distortion.

I won't engage with you in an infinitely long exchange of swearing to the truth because I need to defend myself from your accusing me of lying, and of being silly, solipsistic (I am not sure you are using this word correctly, but hey, enough is enough), not willing to exchange serious ideas, etc.

I was not interested only in proving you wrong. I am interested in proving anyone wrong whose claims are self-contradictory.

Obviously you disagree with my assessment of how you presented your subject and how I perceived it, and the logical links between the two. I note your disagreement, but I shall disengage now, as you are merely repeating yourself, with inventing accusations against me with each new post you write.