You kind of have the habit of assuming that everybody is interested in the same things you are. Kind of like you assume that the people who write the books on Iran you're reading are representative of the concerns of the Iranian population, which oddly enough seem to coincide with your concerns. About the great importance of gender-segregated swimming pools. Or anything involving gender.
............
This criticism extravagantly ignores the fact that shag's posts were meant to add information to a debate you were supposedly participating in.
By first evading that information and next, labeling it as being only of special interest to shag, instead of what the business types call a 'value-add', you demonstrate your complete disinterest in modifying or expanding your POV.
Which illustrates shag's point when she wrote:
...i think, when people on this list exhibit, time and again, that all they can do is engage in these rhetorical tactics carrol's described (poisoning the wells, baiting, etc.), they show they have no interest in being on your side about anything, ever. they do not respect you and never will. their practice is destructive to solidarity...
Once upon a time, I thought only former list member Nathan Newman -- infamous for his pretzely defenses of the Dems -- was flagrantly guilty of argumentation impervious to info. Now, older and less sweet, I recognize there's a pandemic of young(ish) left and leftoid types (mostly male?) who're more fond of typing than learning.
Sometimes (often!), the best damn thing to do is to just read the thread and take time off from opining.
.d.