Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> I think I was comparing two taxation methods, giving some arguments
> why I think one is better (by my own, stated criteria) and asking why
> Olin seems to think the other is better. Olin usually has reasons for
> what he thinks (even if I don't always agree), so I wanted to hear
> them -- I tend to learn more from the ones that disagree with me :)
>
> IMO there is nothing disrespectful about comparing different taxation
> methods, even if these are currently employed in different countries.

If I remember right, we were talking about buying things, which led to
mention of sales tax.  Someone asked about that, was confused, or said
something a little incorrect (I really don't remember now and it doesn't
matter), so I tried to clarify how the system works at least here in
Massachusetts.  Indirectly I made a comment that could have been taken as
saying one system of taxation was better than another, although that wasn't
the point of the message at all.

You picked up on that and clearly wanted to start one of your long drawn ou=
t
back and forth arguments on the subject.  When I saw your message, I though=
t
to myself "Oh crap, I didn't mean to get something like this started again"=
,
and hit delete before I ever saw Bob's message.  These kinds of arguments
with you are long, tedious, take too much time, tedious, long, never result
in anything useful, and tedious.  Here we have the expression "beating a
dead horse", but I don't know how well that idiom is known internationally.
You pick on every little detail and won't let go.  That forces someone to
spend way more time than they want in defending their position, or look lik=
e
they're giving in by giving up.

You have a history of doing this.  In a recent case it was about physics,
which I feel I know something about and it is a scientific subject lots of
people on the list regularly run into.  After much back and forth, I finall=
y
gave up and referred you to a book.  The book has more time than I.  I woul=
d
have happily given up earlier except I didn't want innocent bystanders to
get the wrong impression because giving up is often seen as giving in.

More recently we've seen the same pointless argument about archiving
software.  It is vaguely releated to what we do, but not to EE (where was
Bob for that?).  It has been tedious just watching.  This time if I remembe=
r
right, MW was the one who kept wanting to argue for argument's sake,
although I remember (perhaps incorrectly) you jumped in a few times to
continue kicking the dead horse that shouldn't have even been here in the
first place.  In the past you've been on and on about the metric system, an=
d
seem to like implying that those that uses anything else are stupid.

I think Bob had a pretty good idea where this was headed and was correct in
cutting it off.  However, I took nothing you said as offensive.  There was =
a
reasonable possibility you eventually would have gotten to explaining how
the american taxation system was outdated and stupid, and vaguely implying
we are all a bunch of knuckle-dragging apes for having been born here.  Now
to be clear, I know you'd never come right out and say that.  It would be
guilt by vague reference and association.

While you didn't actually say anything offensive, and you would have been
careful not to do so overtly, to me the main point of stopping the
conversation was because it was going to be long and tedious and about
politics.  While I think Bob was correct, I also think he was unnecessarily
harsh in stopping the thread (just my recollection, I didn't go back and
check).  He could have been nicer about it and just said that this is
getting into politics and please stop.

You asked.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.