You asked for examples in your practice, Rick. You’re the only one of us who has extended permission for this. Let me add myself. If I write something that is disruptive to our good collegial relations I would like to know about it.
Here’s an example, Rick, from our recent discussion of the “About” post for the Phenomena category.
Yes, taken out of context as you have done it is possible to read the first sentence that way. But read together with the immediately following sentence that interpretation is not possible:
To avoid this myopic piecemeal interpretation, I reversed the first two sentences and added “so defined” to make the link between them unignorable:
PCT explains purposeful behavior as control: acting to keep variable aspects of the environment in states which the subject organism prefers. This category is for discussion of the observable phenomena of behavior, so defined.
However, instead of this, in the current state of that discussion I have invited you to substitute your own preferred “About” text, so these changes do not appear there.
Perhaps you can now see that this was not left out.
This ‘shoot from the hip’ style recurs frequently in your CSGnet responses, and persists to some extent even now. My guess is that you are controlling correctness of talk about PCT with gain so high that any disturbance requires an immediate reply to correct it, without any time allowed to perceive the larger context or to consider how matters might be perceived from the other person’s point of view.
The effect of this myopic hair-trigger style on others is not pleasant and does not enhance how you are perceived (reputation, credibility, esteem, etc.).