That's by far the best question I've been asked in this thread. However, satisfying your curiosity would require me to break a well-reasoned commitment I've already made to others.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm reminded of children in grade school who "I know what that means, I'm just not going to explain it to you."

Okay. You're a lot of talking for someone who doesn't want to say anything.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 days ago

I'm reminded of children in grade school who "I know what that means, I'm just not going to explain it to you."

Yes. In this endeavor you're beginning to understand the means I've chosen for the majority.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Ad hominem. How ironic, who could have expected this! Blocked lmao.

[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A. I hate to do this, but

The audience I wish to reach doesn't need their hand held as a child

Strawman, saying that this is about "leading people like they're children" not "clear and effective communication as equals"

B. What I'm talking about is proactively sharing your views, both to save time on questioning and to fill gaps that others would have never thought to ask about. Please, tell me why this isn't a needed part of discussion.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 days ago

I need not accommodate everyone.